Preview:

FILED
FOR PUBLICATION
Jun 19 2009, 8:39 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JAMES MARTIN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A05-0811-CR-681

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Barbara Collins, Judge Cause No. 49F08-0808-PC-185935

June 19, 2009 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary James Martin appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. We affirm. Issue The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Martins conviction. Facts The evidence most favorable to Martins conviction is that on August 5, 2008, at about 5:30 a.m., Martin was placed in a holding cell at the Duvall Work Release Center in Indianapolis after he had an altercation with an officer at the facility. Martin was placed in the cell while officers waited for an arrest warrant for him to arrive. He was handcuffed by one arm to a bench, and officers checked with him every hour to see if he needed to use the restroom. However, at some point in the morning Martin defecated in the holding cell. Later, around 2:00 p.m., Martin was taken to the restroom per his request. At noon, Major Anthony Dickerson arrived to work at the facility and was advised of Martins situation. From his desk approximately forty yards away from the holding cell, Major Dickerson could hear Martin beating on the walls, making loud noises, and yelling "Let me go. Uncuff me. I want to be out. I want to be free." Tr. p. 11. Major 2

Dickerson went to the cell and told Martin to quiet down. However, Martin continued beating on the walls, yelling, and making loud noises. He also stated that he needed his medication, but Major Dickerson could find no record that Martin took any medication. Another officer arrived at the facility around 3:00 p.m. and again told Martin to quiet down, but he did not do so. Finally, at about 4:00 p.m., Martin was arrested for disorderly conduct and removed from the facility. After a bench trial held on October 8, 2008, Martin was found guilty as charged. He now appeals. Analysis When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-finders role, not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. When confronted with conflicting evidence, we must consider it in a light most favorable to the conviction. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. As charged here, the State was required to prove that Martin recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally made unreasonable noise and continued to do so after being asked to stop. See Ind. Code

Download James Martin v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law