ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT