Teresa Yates v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 20A-CR-330
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 22 2021, 8:53 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 Ellen M. O’Connor Theodore E. Rokita Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Teresa Yates, January 22, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-330 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda Brown, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1910-CM-038840

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-330 | January 22, 2021 Page 1 of 4 [1] Teresa Yates appeals her conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly

conduct. 1 Yates asserts the State did not present sufficient evidence, and the

State concedes it failed to prove Yates committed Class B misdemeanor

disorderly conduct. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 27, 2019, Brandon Arnold, the night manager of an Indianapolis

Meijer store, responded to a call from his staff regarding a disruptive person

near the checkout lanes. When he arrived, he saw Yates, who was “being loud

and kind of cussing and everything[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 6.) Arnold asked Yates to

leave, and she refused. Instead, “she just proceeded to kind of walk through the

store and was throwing stuff on the floor – uh, clothing and everything.” (Id.)

Arnold called 911.

[3] When Officer Joshua Coffin arrived, he attempted to talk to Yates, but “she

wasn’t answering [his] questions” and “this stuff that she was saying did not

make sense.” (Id. at 10.) Officer Coffin told Yates that she needed to leave,

and she told him “that she underst[ood] that she need[ed] to leave.” (Id.) Yates

left the store, and Officer Coffin followed her outside. Yates “started walking

around in a circle in the parking lot” and walked towards a vehicle parked in

the parking lot. (Id.) Yates opened the door of the vehicle, and the person

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-330 | January 22, 2021 Page 2 of 4 inside of the vehicle “yelled at her to get away from his car.” (Id.) The

interaction “startled” Yates, she stopped trying to get into the car, and police

arrested her. (Id.)

[4] On October 3, 2019, the State charged Yates with Class A misdemeanor

criminal trespass 2 and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. On January

14, 2020, the trial court held a bench trial and found Yates guilty as charged. 3

The trial court sentenced Yates to 365 days with 363 days suspended for

criminal trespass to be served concurrent with 180 days with 178 days

suspended for disorderly conduct, for an aggregate sentence of 365 days with

363 days suspended. The trial court also ordered Yates to stay away from all

Meijer stores in Marion County.

Discussion and Decision [5] Yates challenges her conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

When charging that crime, the State specifically alleged that “[o]n or about

September 27, 2019, TERESA L YATES did recklessly, knowingly or

intentionally engage in fighting[ 4] or tumultuous conduct.” (App. Vol. II at 13.)

Tumultuous conduct means “conduct that results in, or is likely to result in,

2 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(7). 3 Yates does not appeal her conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. 4 The parties concede Yates was not fighting.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-330 | January 22, 2021 Page 3 of 4 serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.” Ind. Code

§ 35-45-1-1.

[6] Yates argues the State did not present evidence that she engaged in tumultuous

conduct and thus it did not prove she committed Class B misdemeanor

disorderly conduct. The State concedes it did not present sufficient evidence to

prove Yates committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Yates threw

clothing on the floor and opened a stranger’s car door. She did not engage in

any physical contact with other store patrons, nor did she do anything else that

would result in serious bodily injury or substantial property damage. Cf. Bailey

v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1007 (Ind. 2009) (holding State proved tumultuous

conduct when Bailey threw down his coat and drink and angrily approached

another person with his fists clinched). Accordingly, we reverse Yates’

conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Conclusion [7] Because the State did not present sufficient evidence that Yates engaged in

tumultuous conduct, we reverse Yates’ conviction of Class B misdemeanor

disorderly conduct.

[8] Reversed.

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-330 | January 22, 2021 Page 4 of 4