Angela M. Jewell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 07 2017, 9:50 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Bruce E. Andis Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Bedford, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angela M. Jewell, March 7, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 47A01-1610-CR-2330 v. Appeal from the Lawrence Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A. Appellee-Plaintiff Robbins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 47D01-1605-CM-673

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1610-CR-2330 | March 7, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [1] Angela M. Jewell appeals her conviction for class B misdemeanor disorderly

conduct. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her

conviction. [2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History [3] On the afternoon of May 29, 2016, Officer Anthony Wray with the Bedford

Police Department was on patrol when he observed Jewell, then age eighteen,

and her mother, Janice Funk, running across the street and waving at him. He

knew them from several prior interactions. He drove his police vehicle toward

them and rolled down his window. He could hear the women yelling at each

other, so he got out of his vehicle to investigate their apparent “domestic

argument.” Transcript at 9. [4] The women continued yelling and tried to speak over each other to Officer

Wray. He informed them that he would listen to them one at a time starting

with Funk. While he tried to speak with Funk, Jewell continued yelling and

interrupting even though Officer Wray asked her stop multiple times. Officer

Wray opined that her volume was at an eight or nine on a scale of ten and that

she could probably be heard “for a couple of blocks.” Id. at 41. Jewell’s yelling

was loud enough that motorists were slowing down and stopping their vehicles

in the middle of the road to observe the altercation. In addition to motorists

blocking traffic, individuals in the area also stopped to watch.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1610-CR-2330 | March 7, 2017 Page 2 of 5 [5] Officer Wray testified that Jewell’s yelling hindered his investigation regarding

the dispute. He also opined that her loudness threatened the safety of motorists

driving nearby and was unreasonable for the circumstances. As a result, Officer

Wray continued to direct Jewell to calm down and be quiet until he could speak

with her. Every time he began to speak with Funk again, however, Jewell

would yell, scream, and interrupt. Officer Wray eventually ordered Jewell to sit

while he finished speaking with Funk. Jewell sat and was quiet for about

twenty seconds before she stood up, began to walk away, and yelled, as loud as

she could, “I’m fucking done with you.” Id. at 12. Officer Wray then placed

her under arrest for disorderly conduct. After being placed in Officer Wray’s

police vehicle, Jewell yelled, banged the cage inside the car with her head, and

kicked it. In sum, out of the ten-to-fifteen-minute encounter, Jewell was quiet

for only about twenty seconds. [6] Following a bench trial on August 26, 2016, Jewell was convicted of class B

misdemeanor disorderly conduct. She was later sentenced to 180 days in jail,

with 150 of those days suspended to supervised probation. Jewell now appeals.

Discussion & Decision [7] Jewell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.

Our standard of review in this regard is well settled. On review, we consider

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the

conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess

the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless no

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1610-CR-2330 | March 7, 2017 Page 3 of 5

reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient

if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id.

at 147. [8] In order to obtain a conviction as charged, the State was required to prove that

Jewell knowingly made unreasonable noise and continued to do so after being

asked to stop. Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(2). The volume of noise is critical in

determining whether it was unreasonable within the meaning of the statute.

Johnson v. State, 719 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). To support such a

conviction, a defendant must have produced decibels of sound that were too

loud for the circumstances. Id. Further, a loud noise may be found

unreasonable where it disrupts a police investigation. Id. [9] The facts establish that during Officer Wray’s ten-to-fifteen-minute

investigation, Jewell yelled, screamed, and interrupted during all but twenty

seconds of it. She continued her disruptive behavior despite multiple requests

from the officer for her to stop yelling and to calm down. She was so loud that

passing motorists stopped or slowed in the roadway to see what was going on.

Even after she calmed down for several seconds, Jewell again yelled “as loud as

she could” as she began to walk away. Transcript at 12. This occurred while

Officer Wray was still speaking with Funk.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1610-CR-2330 | March 7, 2017 Page 4 of 5 [10] The evidence amply supports Jewel’s conviction for disorderly conduct. See

Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572, 578 (Ind. 2011)(“Barnes’s yelling at the officers,

even after they warned him to calm down, was sufficient to sustain his

disorderly conduct conviction.”); Johnson, 719 N.E.2d at 448 (defendants “loud

manner of speaking”, even though he was not yelling, disrupted the police

investigation and constituted “unreasonable noise”). Further, it is of no

moment that Funk was walking away as she made her last outburst before

being arrested. [11] Judgment affirmed. [12] Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1610-CR-2330 | March 7, 2017 Page 5 of 5