Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2025)
Class A misdemeanor
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 2. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a Class C misdemeanor.
(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person operates a vehicle in a manner that endangers a person.
[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-11-2-2.]
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.175-2001, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 397
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Staley (Staley), appeals his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 and his adjudication as an habitual substance offender, I.”
Tin Thang v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 1256 (Ind. 2014). “" Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (b) (2012) (emphasis added).”
State v. Rans, 739 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “CODE §§ 9-30-5-2 and 3. Rans pled guilty to the A misdemeanor OWI, and the trial court entered judgment of acquittal on the D felony OWI, concluding that Rans' Michigan DWVI conviction did not constitute a previous conviction for OWI as required by Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3.”
State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “The majority addresses the issue as whether the elements of Akins's previous Michigan conviction are substantially similar to Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2 (with which Akins is currently charged) as it existed at the time of Akins's previous Michigan conviction.”
Larry D. Bass v. State of Indiana, 75 N.E.3d 1100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “1 See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2016). 2 I.C. § 9-30-5-1(c).”
Staten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “To obtain a conviction under this statute, I believe that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that actually endangered himself or others.”
Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Excluding the results of Combs’s blood test, the evidence is otherwise sufficient to prove this element.”
Wendy Burnett v. State of Indiana, 74 N.E.3d 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (b). This statute “requires more than intoxication to prove endangerment.”
Dorsett v. State, 921 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “July 1, 2001); I.C. § 9-30-5-2; P.L. 175-2001 § 6 (eff. July 1, 2001)).”
Joanna S. Robinson v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. 2014). “4 Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (b) (2010). 5 Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1 (a)(2) (2010).”
Outlaw v. State, 929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010). “The State has petitioned to transfer jurisdiction, arguing that evidence of "intoxication" should be sufficient to prove "endangerment" as was the case before the current version of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 381-82 .”
Curtis v. State, 937 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code Ann. § 9-30-5-2 (West, Westlaw through 2010 2nd Regular Sess.”
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(1991): 1 case
David Sesay v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(3): 2 cases
Ertel v. State, 928 N.E.2d 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “The majority addresses the issue as whether the elements of Akins's previous Michigan conviction are substantially similar to Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2 (with which Akins is currently charged) as it existed at the time of Akins's previous Michigan conviction.”
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(A): 1 case
David E. Arnold v. State of Indiana, No. 48A05-1112-CR-668 (Ind. Ct. App. July 31, 2012).
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a): 73 cases
Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Excluding the results of Combs’s blood test, the evidence is otherwise sufficient to prove this element.”
Hopper v. State, 957 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2011).
Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Staley (Staley), appeals his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 and his adjudication as an habitual substance offender, I.”
Collins v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Jesse Wharton v. State of Indiana, 42 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b): 67 cases
Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Staley (Staley), appeals his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 and his adjudication as an habitual substance offender, I.”
Staten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “To obtain a conviction under this statute, I believe that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that actually endangered himself or others.”
Dorsett v. State, 921 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “July 1, 2001); I.C. § 9-30-5-2; P.L. 175-2001 § 6 (eff. July 1, 2001)).”
State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “The majority addresses the issue as whether the elements of Akins's previous Michigan conviction are substantially similar to Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2 (with which Akins is currently charged) as it existed at the time of Akins's previous Michigan conviction.”
Larry D. Bass v. State of Indiana, 75 N.E.3d 1100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “1 See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2016). 2 I.C. § 9-30-5-1(c).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.