Full Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any action in reliance upon this Opinion until it is certified. FILED Oct 09 2026, 8:43 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Rindell Williams, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff October 9, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 26A-CR-1109 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Jose D. Salinas, Judge The Honorable John Christ, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D23-2512-CM-38569 Opinion by Judge Kenworthy Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 1 of 8 Judges Brown and Scheele concur. Kenworthy, Judge. Case Summary [1] Rindell Williams appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, 1 arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence. We conclude there was insufficient evidence to prove he committed public intoxication, and we reverse. Facts and Procedural History [2] On the night of December 21, 2025, Officer Jake McIntire of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was patrolling in his vehicle when he observed a man later identified as Williams urinating on the wall of a building at the intersection of Washington and Pennsylvania Streets. Officer McIntire activated the emergency lights of his patrol car and subsequently approached Williams on foot. Officer McIntire was later joined by another officer. During his interaction with Williams, Officer McIntire noted Williams had slurred speech and unstable balance. Officer McIntire asked Williams for identification and Williams handed him a Department of Correction (“DOC”) identification 1 Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3) (2025). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 2 of 8 card. After he was specifically asked for state-issued identification, Williams again presented the DOC card. [3] At some point during the exchange, Williams placed his hands in his pockets. The officers asked him to take his hands out of his pockets, and Williams complied. This pattern repeated two more times until the officers placed Williams in handcuffs. Williams became “[a]gitated and argumentative” as the interaction continued. Tr. Vol. 2 at 14. He started yelling and using profanity. Officer McIntire warned Williams he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Williams’ behavior did not change, and the officers placed him under arrest. [4] The State charged Williams with one count of disorderly conduct and one count of public intoxication. Regarding the public intoxication charge, the charging information alleged Williams “was found at a public place . . . in a state of intoxication” and stated, “Williams either breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10. [5] The officers testified to the above events at the bench trial. 2 Williams testified in his own defense. He stated he was on his way to a shelter for the night before the officers detained him. Williams testified he was on several medications the day of the incident, which he claimed made him drowsy and made him want “to use the restroom really, really bad.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 56. 2 Following the close of the State’s evidence, Williams moved for an involuntary dismissal of the charges. The trial court granted Williams’ motion as to the disorderly conduct charge only. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 3 of 8 Unable to keep himself from urinating, Williams testified he “tried to go to a secluded area . . . and then it started coming out.” Id. At the end of the trial, the court found Williams guilty of public intoxication, explaining: There was a breach of the peace. Mr. Williams’ behavior while not perhaps rising to unreasonable noise for purposes of the disorderly conduct statute, certainly his behavior was not ideal and was a potential breach of the peace. But the court finds specifically that the public urination . . . itself is a breach of the peace. Id. at 66. [6] The trial court sentenced Williams to eighteen days, with credit for nine days already served. Insufficient evidence supports Williams’ conviction for public intoxication. [7] Williams argues his conviction for public intoxication is unsupported by the evidence. He specifically argues the trial court erred as a matter of law by finding him “guilty of public intoxication” in the absence of evidence showing he “breached the peace by urinating in public[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Williams asks this Court to reverse his conviction. The State agrees with Williams for similar reasons and also asks this Court to reverse. See Appellee’s Br. at 8–9. [8] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 4 of 8 State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the factfinder’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)). [9] Under Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3) (the “public intoxication statute”), it is a Class B misdemeanor for an individual to be in a public place or place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the individual’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance, if the person breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace. “Indiana has historically recognized that the purpose of the public intoxication statute ‘is to protect the public from the annoyance and deleterious effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition[.]’” Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570, 576 (Ind. 2014) (quoting State v. Sevier, 20 N.E. 245, 246–47 (Ind. 1889)). [10] In the public intoxication statute’s current iteration, “it is no longer a crime to simply be intoxicated in public.” Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The State has the burden of proving each element of the charged Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 5 of 8 offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In determining whether the elements of an offense are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the factfinder may consider both the evidence and the resulting reasonable inferences. Ruiz v. State, 88 N.E.3d 219, 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). [11] “Our Supreme Court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential element of breaching the peace.” Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 960 n.6 (Ind. 1993)). “A breach of the peace is a violation or disturbance of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.” Ruiz, 88 N.E.3d at 225 (quotation marks and citation omitted). [12] In this case, the State’s charging information alleged Williams “either breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10; see also I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3). The trial court specifically found Williams’ act of urination “itself [was] a breach of the peace.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 66. We disagree. [13] During testimony, Williams admitted he urinated in public. On appeal, he acknowledges he may have been intoxicated the night of his arrest. See Appellant’s Br. at 12. But as both parties agree, the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove Williams breached the peace or was in imminent danger of doing so. See id. at 11; Appellee’s Br. at 11. Nothing in the testimony indicates Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 6 of 8 Williams committed or threatened to commit violence against the officers or anybody else. See Lemon, 868 N.E.2d at 1194. Nothing in the record indicates Williams’ act of urination created a disturbance, and certainly not a disturbance of the “public peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.” Ruiz, 88 N.E.3d at 225. Indiana does not explicitly prohibit public urination. Townsend v. State, 750 N.E.2d 416, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). And our General Assembly has made it clear it is not a crime to simply be intoxicated in public. See Milam, 14 N.E.3d at 881 (citing I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)). Therefore, we conclude insufficient evidence supports Williams’ conviction. Conclusion [14] Williams’ conviction for public intoxication is reversed. [15] Reversed. Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Steven J. Halbert Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Andrew M. Sweet Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 7 of 8 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A-CR-1109 | October 9, 2026 Page 8 of 8