Brice Hinton appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication that endangers a person. [Footnote omitted.] We affirm.
….
Around 7:30 a.m. on April 29, 2015, police were called to a wooded trail between Speedway Elementary School and Speedway Middle School because multiple people observed Hinton in the woods next to the trail with a bow and arrow. Speedway Police Officer Jeremy Howery arrived on the scene and saw Hinton with a bow and arrow by his side. Officer Howery noticed Hinton was intoxicated and ask Hinton what he was doing. Hinton told Officer Howery he was “target shooting.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] Hinton and Officer Howery discussed the danger of such an activity in an area with children nearby, and Hinton agreed it was a bad time to engage in target shooting.2
[Footnote 2:] There was no evidence admitted to prove Hinton actually shot the bow and arrow.
The State charged Hinton with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication that endangers a person. During his bench trial, Hinton did not deny he was intoxicated in public at the time of the incident, but he argued he did not endanger a person. The trial court found Hinton guilty as charged.
….
Hinton wants us to hold the risk he endangered someone was only speculation. The word “endanger” is not defined by the public intoxication statute. Generally, words not defined by statute are given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. [Citation omitted.] The dictionary definition of “endanger” is “to bring into danger or peril” or “to create a dangerous situation.” [Citation omitted.] In Davis, Sesay, and Stephens, the police intervened before the defendants were in a place where they could endanger someone or before the defendants were engaged in a behavior that could endanger someone. See Davis [v. State], 13 N.E.3d [500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)] (although walking while intoxicated, he was in a grassy area and had not yet reached the busy street); and see Sesay [v. State], 5 N.E.3d [478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied] (defendant was drunk near a street, but he was standing still three to five feet from road); and see Stephens [v. State], 992 N.E.2d [935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)] (defendant walked without incident to a nearby convenience store and did not display behavior to indicate he was a danger).
Here, in contrast, children “were within 10 feet of [Hinton’s] location,” and Hinton had the bow and arrow in a position that was an immediate precursor to shooting the weapon. … On cross-examination, Hinton acknowledged Officer Howery’s testimony Hinton “had the bow — or the arrow []nocked in the bow[.]”Hinton indicated “nocked” was the terminology for when the arrow “was in the string [of the bow] basically.”
While there is no allegation Hinton pointed the bow and arrow at anyone, the State is not required to prove “actual harm or injury occur[red]” to satisfy the element of endangerment. [Citation omitted.] We hold because Hinton was in close proximity to others and had the bow and arrow in a position from which he could immediately shoot the weapon, the State provided sufficient evidence he endangered other people while publicly intoxicated. See, e.g., AlSaud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 908 (Ind. 1995) (“the brandishing of a firearm in a congested area or during a dispute can create a variety of risks of bodily injury to others, regardless whether the weapon is loaded”). This is not to say mere possession of a bow and arrow would satisfy the endangerment element of the statute; instead, what is important is the state of the bow and the arrow at the time of police intervention. Hinton’s argument to the contrary is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. [Citation omitted.]
….
Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.