endangerment requirement in Indiana

2012White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind. 1989) (concluding that “the knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense,” in a case where the appellant provided his daughter with marijuana and smoked it with her, the daughter observed him smoking marijuana and intravenously injecting a white substance, and the daughter found hypodermic needles stashed in the kitchen.); Perrine v. Marion Cnty.

2004See White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind.1989) (holding that "knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense"); Cleasant v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (extending the holding in White to exposure to dealing in an illegal drug).

2014As the Court of Appeals first recognized, the intent of this two-part statute—the product of a 2001 amendment—“was to 1 I agree with the majority’s decision to summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to its analysis of Ind. Code § 7.1-5-13 (a)(4). remove the ‘endangerment’ requirement from the general definition of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; see also Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

2014As the Court of Appeals first recognized, the intent of this two-part statute — the product of a 2001 amendment — “was to remove the ‘endangerment’ requirement from the general definition of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied; see also Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2014).

2004See White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind.1989) (holding that "knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense"); Cleasant v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (extending the holding in White to exposure to dealing in an illegal drug).

2004See White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 836 (Ind.1989) (holding that "knowing exposure of a dependent to an environment of illegal drug use poses an actual and appreciable danger to that dependent and thereby constitutes neglect regarding the endangerment requirement of the offense"); Cleasant v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (extending the holding in White to exposure to dealing in an illegal drug).

2016Finally, “the endangerment clause does not require that the State prove a person other than the defendant was actually in the path of the defendant’s vehicle . . . in order to obtain a conviction.” Id. [22] Here, Talboom himself admitted he consumed alcohol.

2016See Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting the endangerment clause “does not require the State to prove a person other that [sic] the defendant was actually in the path of the defendant’s vehicle or in the same area”), trans. denied.

2002The court reasoned that " '[nlegleet is the want of reasonable care that is, the omission of such steps as a reasonable parent would take, such as are usually taken in the ordinary experience of mankind....'" Id. (quoting Eaglen v. State, 249 Ind. 144 , 231 N.E.2d 147, 150 (1967)).

2002The court reasoned that " '[nlegleet is the want of reasonable care that is, the omission of such steps as a reasonable parent would take, such as are usually taken in the ordinary experience of mankind....'" Id. (quoting Eaglen v. State, 249 Ind. 144 , 231 N.E.2d 147, 150 (1967)).

2020See, e.g., Staton v. State, 946 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

2016See Meriweather v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1259, 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellant cannot present one argument at trial and a different argument on appeal), trans. denied. [13] Furthermore, contrary to Lindsey’s assertion, the instruction is an accurate legal explanation of “endangerment” as used in Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (b): The element of endangerment can be established by evidence showing that the defendant’s condition or operating manner could have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant.

2014As the Court of Appeals first recognized, the intent of this two-part statute—the product of a 2001 amendment—“was to 1 I agree with the majority’s decision to summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to its analysis of Ind. Code § 7.1-5-13 (a)(4). remove the ‘endangerment’ requirement from the general definition of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; see also Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

2014As the Court of Appeals first recognized, the intent of this two-part statute — the product of a 2001 amendment — “was to remove the ‘endangerment’ requirement from the general definition of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied; see also Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2014).

2012Office of Child Servs., 866 N.E.2d 269, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“The mere presence of drug paraphernalia in a bag in the residence is insufficient to support a finding of neglect under Indiana Code Section 31-34-1- 1.”); C.A.