MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 27 2019, 7:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Melinda K. Jackman-Hanlin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Greencastle, Indiana Attorney General
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.C., June 27, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-3059
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Karen M. Love,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D03-1805-JD-111
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] J.C. challenges his juvenile delinquency adjudication for resisting law
enforcement, a class A misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a class B
misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. We restate the dispositive issue as
whether the evidence is sufficient to support the adjudication. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the delinquency adjudication are as follows. On
May 3, 2018, sixteen-year-old J.C. was a sophomore at Avon High School. On
that date, Avon Police Department Lieutenant David Margason and Officer
Jacob Boggess were working off-duty as security at the school. During lunch
period, J.C.’s girlfriend broke up with him. J.C. followed her out of the
cafeteria and into a hallway, and had her pinned up against the wall trying to
talk to her. Each time she tried to walk away, J.C. pulled her back. Lieutenant
Margason observed this interaction and noticed that the female was “visibly
distraught and attempting to leave the situation,” but was being prevented from
doing so by J.C. Tr. Vol. 2 at 66. As Lieutenant Margason approached, J.C.
aggressively threw a sweatshirt on the ground, yelled obscenities, and “began to
storm away in the opposite direction[.]” Id. at 67. Believing J.C. to be a
potential security risk to students and staff, Lieutenant Margason instructed
J.C. to “stop” and “come here.” Id. J.C. disregarded Lieutenant Margason’s
commands and continued to walk away and to loudly yell obscenities.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[3] Officer Boggess, who had been just around the corner, saw J.C. walking quickly
away from Lieutenant Margason and ignoring commands to stop. Officer
Boggess tried to catch up with J.C. and also gave him multiple verbal
commands to stop, which J.C. ignored. Officer Boggess finally had to jog to
catch up with J.C. and grabbed J.C.’s wrist to try to get him to stop and calm
down. J.C. turned around in a “very aggressive” manner and pushed Officer
Boggess away. Id. at 31. When Officer Boggess tried again to grab J.C., J.C.
began “to fight[,]” and he and the officer got into a “wrestling match.” Id. at
69, 31. During the struggle in the hallway, Officer Boggess sustained injuries to
his hand and elbow. The two officers were eventually able to get handcuffs on
J.C. and escort him to the school office. As they walked to the office, J.C.
continued to “pull away … scream, [and] create a disturbance.” Id. at 72.
[4] Once in the office, J.C. briefly sat down but then quickly became agitated again.
He stood up and continued to yell and scream obscenities. The officers
instructed him to sit back down, but J.C. refused. As the officers tried to place
J.C. back down in the chair, J.C., who is a “very strong individual,” actively
resisted. Id. at 37. Lieutenant Margason suffered a severely sprained knee
during this struggle. At some point while in the office, J.C. finally
communicated to the officers that he wanted to see “Mr. Bischof.” Id. at 60.
[5] The record indicates that J.C. had been diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and oppositional defiant
disorder, and he has an individualized education plan (“IEP”) with Avon
Community School Corporation identifying him as a student eligible for special
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 3 of 7
education services based upon emotional disability. Pursuant to the IEP, J.C.
has a “behavior plan” to help him reach “behavior goals” and to target his
verbal and physical aggression. Appellant’s Amended App. Vol. 2 at 16.
Among other things, J.C. has a “Hot Pass” that he can “utilize at his request”
when he is feeling overwhelmed so that he can “leave [a] space and go to his
teacher of record … Mr. Bischof.” Id.; Tr. Vol. 2 at 93. If J.C. is in a school
hallway when feeling overwhelmed, he simply needs to identify that he is going
to see Mr. Bischof and he “should be able to just go.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 93.
[6] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that J.C. committed conduct
which, if committed by an adult, amounted to level 6 felony battery on a public
safety official, class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and class B
misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Following a factfinding hearing, the juvenile
court entered true findings on the allegations of resisting law enforcement and
disorderly conduct but did not enter a true finding on the battery allegation.
Although the State requested a disposition of nine months of probation and
payment of fees, the court declined to enter a formal disposition, assessing no
“penalty at all. No costs[,] nothing.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 9; Tr. Vol. 2 at
122. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Although J.C. does not precisely articulate the basis for his appeal, we agree
with the State’s interpretation and restate his claim as a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s true findings of
delinquency. Our standard of review is well settled:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 4 of 7
We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the juvenile committed the charged offense. We examine only
the evidence most favorable to the judgment along with all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We will affirm if
there exists substantive evidence of probative value to establish
every material element of the offense. Further, it is the function
of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony and to
determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses.
T.G. v. State, 3 N.E.3d 19, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citation omitted), trans.
denied.
[8] Regarding the true finding of resisting law enforcement, the State was required
to prove that J.C. knowingly and intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or
interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully engaged
in the execution of his duties. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). Regarding the
true finding of disorderly conduct, the State was required to prove that J.C.
knowingly or intentionally engaged in fighting or in tumultuous conduct. See
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). Here, the State presented ample evidence that J.C.
knowingly and intentionally engaged in conduct that constituted forcible
resistance against Lieutenant Margason and Officer Boggess while they were
lawfully engaged in the execution of their duties, as well as knowingly or
intentionally engaged in fighting or in tumultuous conduct in the school
hallway and office.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 5 of 7
[9] Rather than specifically challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on any of the
elements of these offenses, J.C. instead asserts that the officers failed to follow
the protocol in his IEP, and that such failure caused (and should excuse) any
conduct that would otherwise constitute criminal offenses. We find this
argument problematic for several reasons. First, there is conflicting evidence as
to whether the officers failed to follow any protocol outlined in J.C.’s IEP.
Both officers testified that at no point during the interaction in the hallway or
the initial interaction in the office did J.C. communicate to them that he was
requesting a “Hot Pass” or that he was trying to go see Mr. Bischof. Officer
Boggess admitted that he was unaware that J.C. suffered from emotional
disability, and it is clear from our review of the record that Officer Boggess may
well not have tried to grab or stop J.C. had J.C. communicated properly with
the officers.
[10] Moreover, even assuming that the officers failed to follow IEP protocol, J.C.
cites no legal authority, and we are unaware of any, that would support his
position that a school official’s failure to follow IEP protocol constitutes a legal
excuse for conduct that would otherwise constitute criminal offenses. Although
the existence of the IEP and a review of the protocol are perhaps relevant to
contextualize a student’s behavior and the appropriate or desired adult response
to that behavior, neither the mere existence of an IEP nor an official’s alleged
failure to follow the outlined protocol would constitute a legal defense for
criminal conduct.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[11] We understand that J.C. believes that the Avon Community School
Corporation failed him in this instance, and we do not disagree with his general
statement that public school systems should “take steps to train their school
resource officers on the appropriate way to respond to children with emotional
disabilities.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. Nevertheless, an appeal of the current
juvenile delinquency adjudication is not the proper forum to address these
concerns. Sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s true findings, and
therefore we affirm the court’s delinquency adjudication. 1
[12] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
We commend the juvenile court for its eminently reasonable decision to enter true findings of delinquency
but to decline to enter a formal disposition based on the circumstances presented. See A.M. v. State, 109
N.E.3d 1034, 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter
committed to the trial court’s discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child’s welfare,
community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-3059 | June 27, 2019 Page 7 of 7