D.R. v. State

OPINION

VAIDIK, Judge

Appellant, D.R., challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his adjudication of delinquency for an act which, had it been committed by an adult, would have constituted disorderly conduct.1 Specifically, D.R. claims he did not disrupt a lawful assembly of persons when he muttered a curse word in the presence of one of his teachers. Because we agree there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that D.R. committed disorderly conduct, we reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

D.R. attended New Directions Academy, a school emphasizing behavior…