Joel Moses v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ANN M. SUTTON Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JOEL MOSES, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Oct 27 2010, 9:38 am October 27, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court No. 49A02-1003-CR-268 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Barbara Collins, Judge Cause No. 49F08-0912-CM-98860 BARNES, Judge FILED Case Summary Joel Moses appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. We affirm. Issue Moses raises one issue, which we restate as whether there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Facts At approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2009, Moses, who had consumed alcohol earlier in the day, became upset inside a car repair shop because his warranty was not honored. When Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Nicholas Hubbs arrived at the scene, Moses was holding onto a counter to prevent himself from swaying. Officer Hubbs immediately noticed the odor of alcohol emanating from Moses s breath. Moses s speech was slurred, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Moses was arrested, and the State charged him with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Following a bench trial, Moses was convicted as charged. He now appeals. Analysis Moses argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-finder s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient 2 to support a conviction. Id. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person s use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9). Ind. Code ยง 7.1-5-1-3. Moses argues that, although he consumed alcohol earlier in the day, he was not intoxicated. Moses attributes his actions to the effects of the drug Zyprexa, which he takes to control his paranoid schizophrenia. Moses testified that the medication keeps him from being hyperactive and makes his words slur. Moses is simply asking us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Officer Hubbs testified that Moses smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Officer Hubbs also stated that when he arrived at the car repair shop, Moses was holding onto the counter in an effort to keep from swaying. Officer Hubbs testified that he believed Moses was intoxicated. This is evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that Moses committed Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Conclusion There is sufficient evidence to support Moses s conviction. We affirm. Affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3
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.
