Miller v. State, 971S289
| Decision Date | 29 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 971S289,971S289 |
| Citation | 29 Ind.Dec. 398,279 N.E.2d 222,258 Ind. 79 |
| Parties | Michael C. MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Howard S. Grimm, Jr., Auburn, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Clase, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by Michael C. Miller from a judgment in the DeKalb Circuit Court convicting him of the crime of Disorderly Conduct. On June 24, 1971, the cause was tried before a jury, and upon conviction appellant was fined the sum of one-hundred dollars ($100.00). Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors was overruled, and this appeal followed.
The sole question presented to this Court on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The statute under which appellant was charged, IC 1971, 35--27--2--1, (Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--1510 (1971 Supp.)), provides, in part:
'Whoever shall act in a loud, boisterous or disorderly manner so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or family, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive behavior, threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct. . . .'
In reviewing a conviction where sufficiency of the evidence is raised this Court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. This Court will neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. If there is substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to establish every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. See, Valentine v. State (1971), Ind., 273 N.E.2d 543; Thomas v. State (1971), Ind., 268 N.E.2d 609; Tibbs v. State (1970), Ind., 263 N.E.2d 728.
In Whited v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 149, this Court held that to establish the crime of Disorderly Conduct there must exist under the facts of the case evidence that the appellant (1) acted in a loud, boisterous manner (2) so as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.
The evidence most favorable to the State, as revealed by the record, is as follows: On April 7, 1971, the appellant was present in the Justice of the Peace Court of Robert P. Hodge in Auburn, Indiana. Appellant had gone to the court to testify on behalf of a friend, Harold Perry, who had been charged with a moving traffic violation. Also present in the courtroom, which was described as being approximately eighteen (18) feet wide by twenty-five (25) feet long, were seven other persons, including two Indiana State Policemen and the Deputy Prosecutor. The hearing was informal in nature with Perry and John Colgate, an Indiana State Policeman, giving their versions of the incident respectively. At the conclusion, Perry was found guilty of the charge against him, whereupon appellant arose from his seat, and, according to the testimony of Trooper Colgate, stated, 'This is nothing but a damn farce.' Colgate turned to appellant and warned him to remain silent. Appellant replied, 'It's nothing but a goddamn kangaroo court,' and he started to leave the courtroom. At that time, Colgate told the appellant to apologize to the Court, but the appellant refused, stating, 'Hell, I'm not apologizing to anybody.' Colgate then placed appellant under arrest, handcuffed him, and took him to jail.
Officer Colgate's testimony was partially corroborated by the testimony of another Indiana State Policeman, James Springer. Trooper Springer testified that the incident occurred while Perry, the Deputy Prosecutor and the Justice of the Peace were engaged in a discussion over the correctness of the finding made by the court. Trooper Springer further testified that appellant left the courtroom after his remark about the 'kangaroo court.' According to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hess v. State
...of pure speech, this statute can only be applied if the speech has a tendency to lead to violence. Whited, supra; Miller v. State (1972), Ind., 279 N.E.2d 222, 29 Ind.Dec. 398. Thus interpreted, the statute does not infringe upon the right to free speech, and is not Appellant lastly argues ......
-
Mesarosh v. State
...than the Chaplinski "fighting words" doctrine. 4 The court subsequently reversed a disorderly conduct conviction in Miller v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 79, 279 N.E.2d 222. There, a justice of the peace convicted Miller's friend of a traffic violation. Miller then turned to one of the prosecuti......
-
State v. Culp, 2-981A330
...while intoxicated. See Hicks v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 204, 294 N.E.2d 613, reh. denied, 260 Ind. 204, 296 N.E.2d 431; Miller v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 79, 279 N.E.2d 222. ...
-
Stults v. State, 2--1273A267
...to pure speech only if that speech has a tendency to lead to violence. As authority she cites Whited v. State, supra; Miller v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 79, 279 N.E.2d 222, and Hess v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 427, 297 N.E.2d 413. Even if we assume that Stults' interpretation of the above decis......