Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Jun 15 2010, 8:50 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANNA ONAITIS HOLDEN Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana HENRY A. FLORES, JR. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

RODERICK M. WALSH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 57A03-0911-CR-506

APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, Judge Cause No. 57D02-0905-CM-000548 57D02-0905-IF-001610 57D02-0905-IF-001611 57D02-0905-IF-001612

JUNE 15, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARTEAU, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Roderick W. Walsh appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. We affirm. ISSUES Walsh raises two issues for our review, which we restate as: I. II. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Whether the absence of a jury instruction regarding the definition of "endangers" or "endangerment" constituted fundamental error by the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 21, 2009, Walsh visited his brother's house with a beer in one hand and a full twelve-pack in the other. Walsh had at least three beers before the two men left in Walsh's vehicle. While driving, Walsh bragged about the size of his vehicle's engine and demonstrated its power by continuously squealing his tires despite pleas from his brother, Anthony, to stop.

2

As he continued to drive, Walsh struck another vehicle in the rear. Walsh fled the scene at a speed faster than other traffic in the area. After Walsh traveled some distance from the accident scene, he stopped the car to check for damage. Thereafter, he and Anthony opened beers and continued driving. A concerned citizen, who had followed Walsh after he fled the accident scene, informed the authorities of his location. Based on the information provided by the citizen, police were able to locate and stop Walsh. The police officer who made the stop observed that Walsh had red eyes, slurred speech, and poor balance. Walsh emanated an odor of alcoholic beverages, and there were open containers of beer in the car. Walsh admitted to rear ending another vehicle, but he refused to submit to a chemical test after being arrested. The State charged Walsh with Class A misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and Class C misdemeanor failing to stop after an accident. A jury found Walsh guilty of both misdemeanors, and Walsh now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Walsh contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he operated his vehicle in a manner that endangers a person. Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, this court does not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Davis v. State, 3

791 N.E.2d 266, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with all reasonable and logical inferences drawn therefrom. Id. at 269-70. The conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. Id. at 270. In order to prove that a person committed the Class A misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, the State must show that the person operated a vehicle while intoxicated and the vehicle is operated in "a manner that endangers a person." Ind. Code

Download Roderick M. Walsh v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law