K.B. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 16 2019, 9:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David M. Payne Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lauren A. Jacobsen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
K.B., July 16, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-188
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J.
Appellee-Petitioner. Kenworthy, Judge
The Honorable Brian F. McLane,
Juvenile Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
27D02-1810-JD-121
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 8
[1] K.B. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing acts that would
constitute Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult.
K.B. now appeals and argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to
support his delinquency adjudication.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] K.B. is a fourteen-year-old middle school student at the Indiana Academy. On
September 13, 2018, K.B. was involved in a social media comment thread that
sparked conflict among him and a few classmates. K.B.’s anger and frustration
from the comments carried over into the school day. During Mr. Edson Baiao’s
(“Mr. Baiao”) normal class period, K.B. became angry and “flipped over a
partition of a pocket door . . . and [threw] some classroom materials, like papers
and things on the floor[.]” Tr. p. 6. The partition was in the middle of the
classroom and approximately three feet wide and over five feet tall.
Importantly, after knocking down the partition, K.B. yelled, “I’ll f***ing kill
‘em all.” Id. at 11.
[4] Mr. Baiao called Indiana Academy director Rachel Roesch (“Ms. Roesch”)
regarding K.B.’s disruptive behavior in the classroom and requested her
assistance with the situation. Ms. Roesch observed the partition lying on the
floor in the classroom full of students. Ms. Roesch took K.B. back to the office
and called K.B.’s mother. Ms. Roesch talked with K.B. about what had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 8
happened in the classroom, and K.B. admitted he had pushed over the partition
and made the threat. Tr. pp. 10–11.
[5] On October 15, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that K.B. was a
delinquent child for committing acts that would constitute Class B
misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult. The juvenile court
held a fact-finding hearing on November 28, 2018, at which Ms. Roesch
testified. During that testimony, the following colloquy occurred:
Q: Um, I’m going to direct your attention to September 13th of
this year. Um, do you know what ---- were you called to a
classroom to deal with a disruption that had occurred there?
A: Yes
Q: What classroom was that?
A: The middle school room for Indiana Academy.
Q: Okay, and uh, who’s the teacher?
A: Mr. B is what they call him. His name is Edson Baiao.
Q: And did Mr. Baiao tell you why you were ---- your assistance
was, was needed?
...
A: Yes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 3 of 8
Q: And what did he tell you?
A: That a student became upset in the classroom and had flipped
over a partition of a pocket door, um, and had thrown some
classroom materials, like papers and things on the floor and ----
Q: And when you got ---- I’m sorry. Go ahead.
A: And, and he had yelled a threat was the other issue.
Q: And when you, um, arrived, were there students assembled in
that classroom?
A: Yes.
Q: And was ---- that’s a normal time for class to be taking place?
A: Yes.
Q: And was [K.B.] one of those students?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you see any sign or indication of something that had
been knocked over in the classroom?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you explain that to the Judge, please?
A: The, the partition ---- it’s, uh, it’s like a wall to separate the
middle school room into a hall, uh, like a ---- we called it the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 4 of 8
sensory room area. Um, it’s similar to a pocket door but it
doesn’t sit in a door. It’s just separating, and it was completely
pushed over to the ground.
Q: And is it large enough that it would’ve caused, uh, both a
visual and an audible disruption to the class if it goes falling to
the ground?
A: Yeah.
Q: To the floor?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: And it’s there for a, for a certain purpose to maintain what?
A: Um, there’s a classroom on the other side so to help block
noise and to keep noise inside both classrooms.
Tr. pp. 6–7.
[6] K.B. moved for a directed verdict claiming the State had not presented
sufficient evidence that K.B. committed disorderly conduct. The court denied
the motion and entered a true finding on the allegation of delinquency. On
December 28, 2018, the juvenile court subsequently entered a dispositional
order placing K.B. on formal probation for a term of six months and mandatory
participation in counseling. K.B. now appeals his delinquency adjudication.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 5 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[7] K.B. argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his delinquency
adjudication. When we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a delinquency adjudication, we consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the adjudication. D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d
966, 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. We do not assess witness credibility
or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to
the trial court's ruling. R.H. v. State, 916 N.E.2d 260, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
(citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007)), trans. denied. We will
affirm the adjudication unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements
of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the
evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. The evidence
is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the
adjudication. Id.[8] To support K.B.’s delinquency adjudication for acts that would constitute Class
B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult, the State was
required to prove that K.B.: (1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally; (2)
disrupted a lawful assembly of persons. Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a). K.B. does not
dispute that he pushed over the partition in the classroom and made a threat
while doing so; his sole argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove that
he disrupted a lawful assembly of persons.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 6 of 8
[9] In support of his argument, K.B. cites D.R. v. State, 729 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000). In D.R., a student muttered an expletive in the presence of one
teacher outside the classroom while standing in the common area. Id. at 598.
The State alleged that D.R. was a delinquent child because he committed
disorderly conduct. Id. At trial and on appeal, D.R. argued that there was
insufficient evidence that his behavior disturbed a lawful assembly of persons
because he muttered his expletive in the presence of one teacher and not in the
presence of a group of people. This court found the evidence was insufficient to
support the trial court’s finding that D.R. committed the offense of disorderly
conduct by disrupting a lawful assembly of persons. Id. at 599.
[10] The facts of this case are readily distinguishable from those in D.R. First, K.B.
was present in a classroom during normal school hours when students are
expected to be in the classroom. And under the facts and circumstances of this
case, it was reasonable for the juvenile court, acting as the finder of fact, to find
that K.B. did not knock over the partition and make the threat in front of Mr.
Baiao alone, but rather, in the presence of other students, thereby distinguishing
this case from D.R.
[11] Students are required by law to be in the classroom and Ms. Roesch received
the call about disruptive behavior during a normal class period. Ms. Roesch
testified that when she arrived, there were students in the room and that K.B.
was “one of those students.” Tr. pp. 6-7. Therefore, there was a reasonable
inference drawn from the evidence that a group of students were assembled in
the classroom for the common purpose of receiving an education. Further, K.B.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 7 of 8
had a conversation with Ms. Roesch explaining what had just happened and
Ms. Roesch testified that in her experience, such an incident would be
disruptive to the efforts of the students to learn. For these reasons, and mindful
of the nature of K.B.’s threat, in the context of current events, we conclude that
the State presented sufficient evidence that K.B. disrupted a lawful assembly of
persons.
Conclusion
[12] Based on the facts and circumstances before us, the State presented sufficient
evidence to support K.B.’s delinquency adjudication for committing acts that
would constitute Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an
adult.
[13] Affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-188 | July 16, 2019 Page 8 of 8