Court affirms student's convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After examining the few Indiana decisions on tumultuous conduct in the context of sufficiency of evidence to support a disorderly conduct conviction, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a high school student's conviction for behavior involving the dean of students. The high court also affirmed the student's battery conviction against the assistant principal.

In Christopher Bailey v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0812-CR-630, student Christopher Bailey appealed his battery and disorderly conduct convictions stemming from an incident at his high school, claiming insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed with Bailey and reversed his convictions, but the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to support both convictions.

Assistant Principal Sarah Brewer told Bailey to pull up his pants during a morning breakfast service at the school; he refused and was upset. Brewer extended her arm to prevent Bailey from walking away and Bailey pushed through her arm with his body while keeping his hands at his side. Dean of Students Brian Knight saw this and came to confront Bailey about the situation. Bailey threw down his drink and coat, stepped toward Knight, and began yelling obscenities at him. The township school officer responded and Bailey backed away and left the cafeteria once he saw the officer. He was then arrested and convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery for his conduct with Brewer and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct because of the incident with the dean.

Although Bailey contended he didn't knowingly touch Brewer, in his testimony he conceded that although he didn't touch her with his hands, he may have touched her with another part of his body, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. He also admitted to being angry during the incident. The state proved a knowing touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, the justice wrote.

The high court didn't have much precedent when it came to Bailey's conviction of disorderly conduct, in which the state had to prove he recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engaged in fighting or in tumultuous conduct. Bailey argued his actions with the dean didn't rise to the statutory definition of tumultuous conduct. The justices turned to Whitley v. State, 553 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), Gebherd v. State, 484 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), B.R. v. State, 823 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), and N.J. ex rel. Jackson v. Metropolitan School District of Washington Township, 879 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), for guidance on whether Bailey's actions support a disorderly conduct conviction.

The Supreme Court determined Bailey's conduct was similar to B.R.'s, a student who approached another student in anger and in the midst of a heated argument, pointed an open or unsheathed knife at the other student. The immediate danger of serious bodily injury only ended when the other student hit B.R. and left.

In the instant case, Bailey threw down his drink and coat, which could have been interpreted as freeing up his arms to fight with the dean, wrote the chief justice. In addition, he stepped toward the dean in an angry manner, with his fists clenched and yelling obscenities within inches of Knight's face.

"The record indicates Bailey backed away from Dean Knight only upon seeing Officer Hunter. It was reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that, but for the officer's arrival, Bailey's conduct would have escalated," he wrote.

The trier of fact could reasonably infer that serious bodily injury would result had the police officer not arrived given Bailey's anger in approaching the dean, throwing his coat and drink, his verbal tirade, and his clenched fists.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.