Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-330 | January 22, 2021 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Ellen M. O’Connor

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Teresa Yates,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 22, 2021

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-330

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Linda Brown, 

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 2 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 3 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 trespass2 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 4 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.