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