FOR PUBLICATION


ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

MARK A. RYAN    STEVE CARTER
Kokomo, Indiana    Attorney General of Indiana
                
             JODI KATHRYN STEIN
            Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Code § 5-4-1-9 (Burns Code Ed. Repl. 2001) also provides that “[a]n officer required to give an official bond shall give the bond before the commencement of his term of office. If the officer fails to give the bond before that time, the officer may not take office.” Perkins asserts that a reasonable interpretation of the above statutes is that the elected prosecutor is required to comply with the bond provisions at the beginning of each term.     
There is nothing in I.C. § 33-14-1-2, I.C. § 5-4-1-9, or I.C. § 5-4-1-20 which requires a prosecuting attorney to file a new bond at the beginning of each term, only that a bond be filed before the commencement of his term of office. Here, Prosecutor Koenig executed the required bond at the beginning of his first term and such bond was effective for a term of four years beginning January 1, 1979 and ending on December 31, 1982. Prior to the beginning of his second term as the Bartholomew County Prosecutor, Koenig filed a second bond on December 20, 1982 which provided that it was effective January 1, 1983 “and until his successor is elected and qualified.” State’s Exhibit 2. The second bond remained in effect for each successive term Koenig was elected. Prosecutor Koenig thus complied with the statutes’ requirements that he file a bond prior to the commencement of his term of office to ensure his faithful performance of the duties of the office of prosecuting attorney.
Perkins asserts that even if the statute did not require Koenig to file a separate bond for each elected term, that the bond on file is defective in that it does not contain Koenig’s signature or indicate that it was “executed” by Koenig. See I.C. § 5-4-1-20(d)(1); Ind. Code § 5-4-1-13 (Burns Code Ed. Repl. 2001) (providing that “[a]ll official bonds required by statue shall be executed by the principal and one (1) or more freehold sureties . . . .”). Perkins also asserts that the bond is defective in that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., the named surety, is not a freehold surety as required by statute. See I.C. § 5-4-1-20(d)(1).
Indiana Code § 5-4-1-12 (Burns Code Ed. Repl. 2001) provides that “No official bond shall be void because of defects in form or substance or in the approval and filing thereof.” That statute continues that “upon the suggestion of such defects, such bond shall be obligatory as if properly executed, filed and approved.” Id. Thus, even if Perkins’ alleged defects as to Prosecutor Koenig’s bond are true, such defects do not defeat Koenig’s authority as the elected prosecutor of Bartholomew County. Further, Perkins has cited no authority which suggests that defects in a prosecuting attorney’s bond strip the prosecutor of his authority to hold that office and execute his or her duties. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Perkins’ motion to dismiss.
    Perkins also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, asserting that the State failed to prove that he was intoxicated. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Lycan v. State, 671 N.E.2d 447, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). We consider only the evidence which is favorable to the judgment along with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of probative value to support a conviction. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. VanMatre v. State, 714 N.E.2d 655, 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Indiana Code § 9-30-5-4 provides, in pertinent part, “A person who causes serious bodily injury to another person when operating a motor vehicle . . . while intoxicated commits a Class D felony.” To prove that Perkins was intoxicated, the State was required to present evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Perkins was:
“under the influence of: (1) alcohol; (2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1); (3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance; or (4) a combination of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs; so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties to an extent that endangers a person.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86 (Burns Code Ed. Repl. 1997).

Proof of intoxication may be established by showing impairment. Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Evidence of the following can establish impairment: impaired attention and reflexes, watery and bloodshot eyes, odor of marijuana upon one’s breath, and failure of field sobriety tests. See id.
At trial, Detective Williams testified about his training and experience as a police officer with regard to determining whether an individual is intoxicated. Detective Williams testified that he detected the odor of burnt marijuana on Perkins’ clothing and breath and inside the passenger compartment of the truck Perkins had been driving. Detective Williams also noted that Perkins’ eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that his speech was thick, all signs which Detective Williams associated with someone under the effects of marijuana. He further observed that Perkins lacked sequential thinking and that he had to concentrate to understand his questions.
Detective Williams also testified as to the purpose of field sobriety tests and explained in detail how each test is administered and what a police officer looks for as indicators of intoxication. Detective Williams further testified that he explained and demonstrated to Perkins how each test was to be performed. He then described in detail for the jury how Perkins performed on each test, explaining that Perkins’ performance indicated that his attention was divided and his focus was lessened. Specifically, Detective Williams testified that the horizontal gaze nystagmus test revealed that Perkins was unable to move his eyes in a smooth manner and that his eyes were twitching; on the finger count test, Perkins did not follow instructions to hold his hand up and failed to count back from four to one as instructed; when asked to recite a portion of the alphabet, Perkins sang the alphabet in a childish, joyful manner, and did not stop at the letter “Q” as instructed; and finally, on the walk and turn test, Perkins did not remain in position during instructions, turn around as instructed and demonstrated, and had to ask for clarification on how to complete the test. Based upon his performance, Detective Williams concluded that Perkins failed each of the four tests. Detective Williams testified that his training and experience, the smell of burnt marijuana on Perkins’ clothes and breath, and Perkins’ performance on the four field sobriety tests led him to conclude that Perkins was intoxicated.
In spite of this evidence, Perkins argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was intoxicated. Specifically, Perkins discounts the mistakes he made during the field sobriety tests and thus asserts that the State presented only minimal evidence as to whether he was impaired. Perkins further asserts that the fact that Detective Williams smelled burnt marijuana established nothing more than a mere suggestion that Perkins may have used marijuana. Perkins then directs our attention to evidence which he asserts proves that he had not been using marijuana on the day of the accident. In all, Perkins’ arguments amount to nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, a task we will not undertake upon appeal. The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Perkins was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MAY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.