MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 29 2019, 9:07 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ludovic Hall, April 29, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2314
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1805-CM-14892
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2314 | April 29, 2019 Page 1 of 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Ludovic Hall (Hall), appeals from his conviction for
disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Hall presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the State
produced sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed disorderly conduct.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On April 17, 2018, Hall was at the City County Building in Indianapolis to
attend a hearing in the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 13. Hall became
irate and began repeatedly yelling, “it’s not fair[!]” (Transcript p. 6). The bailiff
and magistrate of the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 10, both heard
Hall yelling from their offices. There was a boom, and Hall began yelling even
louder. Then the bailiff and the magistrate heard the sound of breaking glass.
They went out into the hallway where they saw that the glass panel of one of
the building’s doors was shattered. They also encountered Hall, who was the
only person there. Hall told them that he did not intend to break the door.
[5] On May 9, 2018, the State filed an Information, charging Hall with Class B
misdemeanor criminal mischief and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
On August 23, 2018, the trial court conducted Hall’s bench trial. The trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2314 | April 29, 2019 Page 2 of 5
found Hall guilty as charged but entered judgment of conviction on the
disorderly conduct offense only. The trial court proceeded directly to
sentencing and sentenced Hall to 180 days, fully suspended to time-served. The
trial court also ordered Hall to pay $586.74 to the City of Indianapolis for the
cost of replacing the broken door.
[6] Hall now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[7] Hall contends that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed the offense of disorderly conduct. It is well-established that when
we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is not our role as an appellate
court to assess witness credibility or to weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm
the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[8] The State charged Hall with disorderly conduct as follows:
On or about April 17, 2018, [Hall] did recklessly, knowingly or
intentionally engage in fighting or tumultuous conduct[.]
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 12). At trial, the State proceeded on a theory that
Hall committed tumultuous conduct, which is defined as “conduct that results
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2314 | April 29, 2019 Page 3 of 5
in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial
damage to property.” I.C. § 35-45-1-1.
[9] Hall does not dispute that he broke the glass plate of the door; rather, he
contends that the State did not prove that he did so with the requisite intent. A
defendant’s intent is ordinarily a matter of circumstantial proof which may be
inferred from the defendant’s conduct. Henson v. State, 86 N.E.3d 432, 439 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2017). A person acts intentionally if, “when he engages in the
conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a).
[10] Here, the evidence showed that immediately prior to breaking the glass, Hall
was irate and yelling “it’s not fair[!]” repeatedly through the City County
Building, moments before he caused a booming sound and broke the glass in
the door. (Tr. p. 6). This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Hall
was angry at the time and, as a result of that anger, made contact with the door
in a manner that resulted in its breaking. This evidence supported a reasonable
conclusion that Hall acted intentionally—with the conscious objective to
damage property and, as a result, break the glass.
[11] The gravamen of Hall’s argument on appeal is that the State did not make its
case because no one directly observed him break the glass and the only evidence
of his intent was his statement that he did not intend to do so. However, “[a]
trier of fact may infer the requisite intent for a crime exists based solely on
circumstantial evidence.” Brown v. State, 67 N.E.3d 1127, 1131 (Ind. Ct. App.
2017). Therefore, it was not necessary for the State to produce direct evidence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2314 | April 29, 2019 Page 4 of 5
in the form of an eye witness to the glass breaking in order to make its case.
The circumstances surrounding the offense showing that Hall was angry prior
to breaking the glass supported a reasonable inference that Hall acted
intentionally when he broke the glass, and we will not consider contrary
evidence, given our standard of review. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.
CONCLUSION
[12] In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the State proved that Hall committed
disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
[13] Affirmed.
[14] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2314 | April 29, 2019 Page 5 of 5