Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any 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:

TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

ERIC P. BABBS

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

LAUREN HURSE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1307-CR-563

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Helen Marchal, Judge

The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Commissioner

Cause No. 49G16-1206-FD-42438

January 27, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge
2

Lauren Hurse appeals her conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.1 As 

there was sufficient evidence she engaged in disorderly conduct, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 21, 2012, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police were called to a disturbance. 

When Officer Heidi Wise arrived, she saw Hurse arguing with a man in a wheelchair. 

Officer Wise described both Hurse and the man as “loud and boisterous.” (Tr. at 11.) She

asked Hurse to move to the sidewalk, but Hurse “continued to yell at both me and the male 

subject. I had asked her three or four times to step down to the sidewalk because I would not 

be able to understand the male while I spoke with him while she was continuing to yell.” (Id.

at 12.) Officer Wise told Hurse to go to Hurse’s car, which was approximately three houses 

away, but “[Hurse] continued to [yell] and walk back and forth along the street until I walked 

down to the car and stopped her there . . . detained her because she would not stop yelling so 

I could investigate the situation.” (Id. at 13.) Officer Wise handcuffed Hurse and arrested 

her for disorderly conduct. 

The State charged Hurse with Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct and Hurse was 

found guilty after a bench trial.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Hurse argues there was insufficient evidence “her yelling was unreasonable and that it 

interfered with the police investigation.” (Br. of Appellant at 3.) In reviewing sufficiency of 

evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Guidry v. 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3.
3

State, 650 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Rather, we consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the verdict, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. We 

will affirm the conviction if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support it. Id. 

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally makes unreasonable noise and 

continues to do so after being asked to stop commits disorderly conduct. Ind. Code § 35-45-

1-3. Noise is unreasonable if it is too loud for the circumstances or if it disrupts police 

investigations. Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363, 1367 (Ind. 1996). 

Officer Wise testified that her investigation was impaired because Hurse would not be 

quiet long enough for her to question the parties involved. That is sufficient evidence she 

committed disorderly conduct. See id. We acknowledge Hurse’s testimony she was not 

being loud and did not mean to thwart the investigation, but we must decline her invitation to 

reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. See Guidry, 650 N.E.2d at 

65 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses).

Affirmed. 

VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.