Timothy Jester v. State of Indiana

a state of intoxication.
“„Intoxicated‟ means being under the influence of alcohol „so that there is an impaired
condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person‟s faculties.‟”
Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Ind. Code § 9–13–2–86).
“With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence upon the element of intoxication, it is
established that a non-expert witness may offer an opinion upon intoxication, and a
conviction may be sustained upon the sole testimony of the arresting officer.” Wright v.
State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Among other factors, intoxication may be
established through evidence of the consumption of significant amounts of alcohol, impaired
attention and reflexes, watery or bloodshot eyes, the odor of alcohol on the breath, unsteady
balance, failure of field sobriety tests and slurred speech. Fields, 888 N.E.2d at 307 (citing
Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).
In the instant matter, the charging information alleged that Jester was “found in a state
of intoxication” in a public place, specifically, the “area of the 1200 block of West Main St.”
Appellant‟s App. p. 10. Jester concedes that he was in a public place, but argues that the
evidence was insufficient to prove that he was intoxicated. Upon review, however, we
conclude that despite Jester‟s contention to the contrary, the evidence was indeed sufficient
to prove that he was intoxicated at the time he was arrested.
With respect to Jester‟s state of intoxication, Murphy, who was working as a bouncer
at the River Tavern on the night Jester was arrested, testified that he saw Jester “have a
couple beverages” that included vodka, gin, and whisky. Tr. p. 95. Murphy testified that
4