Curtis Outlaw v. State of Indiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Barbara J. Simmons Oldenburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana ______________________________________________________________________________ In the Indiana Supreme Court _________________________________ FILED Jun 24 2010, 2:11 pm CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court No. 49S02-1006-CR-328 CURTIS OUTLAW, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49F19-0901-CM-4126 The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0904-CR-340 _________________________________ June 24, 2010 Per Curiam. In 2001, the legislature established two separate misdemeanor classes for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated is a Class C misdemeanor. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a) (2004). Operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person is a more serious Class A misdemeanor. See I. C. § 9-30-5-2(b) (2004). Here, there was evidence Outlaw was intoxicated, including that he smelled of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred and he failed three field sobriety tests. The State concedes, however, there was no evidence that Outlaw operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Outlaw was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction on grounds that, although the State proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the State failed to present any evidence on the element of endangerment. See Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The State has petitioned to transfer jurisdiction, arguing that evidence of intoxication should be sufficient to prove endangerment as was the case before the current version of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 381-82. We conclude the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the State s argument for the reasons explained in its decision. We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). The Class A misdemeanor conviction is reversed. Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
