Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Jan 27 2014, 8:28 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ERIC P. BABBS
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LAUREN HURSE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1307-CR-563
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Helen Marchal, Judge
The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Commissioner
Cause No. 49G16-1206-FD-42438
January 27, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Lauren Hurse appeals her conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.1 As
there was sufficient evidence she engaged in disorderly conduct, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 21, 2012, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police were called to a disturbance.
When Officer Heidi Wise arrived, she saw Hurse arguing with a man in a wheelchair.
Officer Wise described both Hurse and the man as “loud and boisterous.” (Tr. at 11.) She
asked Hurse to move to the sidewalk, but Hurse “continued to yell at both me and the male
subject. I had asked her three or four times to step down to the sidewalk because I would not
be able to understand the male while I spoke with him while she was continuing to yell.” (Id.
at 12.) Officer Wise told Hurse to go to Hurse’s car, which was approximately three houses
away, but “[Hurse] continued to [yell] and walk back and forth along the street until I walked
down to the car and stopped her there . . . detained her because she would not stop yelling so
I could investigate the situation.” (Id. at 13.) Officer Wise handcuffed Hurse and arrested
her for disorderly conduct.
The State charged Hurse with Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct and Hurse was
found guilty after a bench trial.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Hurse argues there was insufficient evidence “her yelling was unreasonable and that it
interfered with the police investigation.” (Br. of Appellant at 3.) In reviewing sufficiency of
evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Guidry v.
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3.
2
State, 650 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Rather, we consider only the evidence most
favorable to the verdict, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. We
will affirm the conviction if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support it. Id.
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally makes unreasonable noise and
continues to do so after being asked to stop commits disorderly conduct. Ind. Code § 35-45-
1-3. Noise is unreasonable if it is too loud for the circumstances or if it disrupts police
investigations. Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363, 1367 (Ind. 1996).
Officer Wise testified that her investigation was impaired because Hurse would not be
quiet long enough for her to question the parties involved. That is sufficient evidence she
committed disorderly conduct. See id. We acknowledge Hurse’s testimony she was not
being loud and did not mean to thwart the investigation, but we must decline her invitation to
reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. See Guidry, 650 N.E.2d at
65 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses).
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
3