KIRSCH, J.
We next determine whether sufficient evidence was presented to prove that Temperly endangered a person [Footnote omitted.] Both our Supreme Court and this court have recently held that the State is required to present evidence beyond mere intoxication in order to prove the element of endangerment and support a conviction of OWI as a Class A misdemeanor. Outlaw v. State, 929 N.E.2d 196, 196 (Ind. 2010) (adopting and incorporating by reference this court‟s opinion in Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)); Dorsett v. State, 921 N.E.2d 529, 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Here, the stipulated facts established that Temperly was involved in a fatal accident, of which he was not the cause, when Merrick, who had been observed driving erratically, drove his vehicle into the path of Temperly’s vehicle. Appellant’s App. at 26. The stipulated facts also showed that Temperly had an odor of alcoholic beverages about his person, admitted that he had consumed beer prior to the accident, and was determined to have a BAC of .244 after a chemical test. Id. at 27-28. No evidence other than Temperly’s intoxication was presented to suggest that he operated his vehicle in a manner that endangered himself or any other person. We therefore conclude that insufficient evidence was presented that Temperly operated his vehicle while intoxicated in a manner than endangered a person, and we must reverse his conviction.
RILEY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.