Legal Opinion · Dissent

Oliver v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 12, 2003No. 49A05-0203-CR-111Published

1DissentSharpnack, J.

I respectfully dissent because I conclude that the majority has construed the term "assembly" too narrowly and the evidence is sufficient to sustain Oliver's conviction for disorderly conduct as a class B misdemeanor.

Oliver was convicted of disorderly conduct pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-45-1-8(8) (1998), which provides that; "A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally ... disrupts a lawful assembly of persons commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor." As we noted in D.R. v. State, the phrase "a lawful assembly of persons" has not been defined by the legislature. 729 N.E.2d…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API