ALBERTSON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christopher P. Albertson appeals his conviction following a bench trial for disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor. Albertson raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, Jessica McKevitt moved into a home next door to Albertson and his girlfriend, Crystal Siscel. The relationship between the neighbors was “[n]ot good” and included “a lot of harassment back and forth[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. At around 4:00 p.m. on July 23, 2024, McKevitt returned to her home after work and consumed two beers. Later that evening, she went to sit on her deck with her two dogs.

[3] Between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., one of McKevitt's dogs, which was a “tiny” Yorkshire Terrier, “slipped through” a crack in the door and ran into Albertson and Siscel's yard. Id. at 10. McKevitt then heard the dog “squealing” and observed Albertson and Siscel kicking the dog. Id. at 11. McKevitt ran up and grabbed the dog, and Albertson said that “he was about to kick [the dog] like a football.” Id. At that point, everyone began “screaming back and forth[.]” Id. at 12. Siscel then “attacked” McKevitt, and an altercation ensued between them. Id.

[4] Officers with the White County Sheriff's Office were alerted to the incident and responded to the scene. After their arrival, the officers made the decision to arrest all three individuals and escort them to jail. The officer who detained Albertson allowed him to enter his house to gather money and then deliver it to his mother, who lived across the street, for his bail. While Albertson spoke to his mother, he stated that he “told [Siscel] to hit [McKevitt].” Id. at 29. Then, while Albertson was in the officer's vehicle on the way to the jail, he voluntarily stated that “he told [Siscel] to punch [McKevitt.]” Id. at 30.

[5] The State charged Albertson with disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor.¹ Thereafter, the court held a bench trial. During the trial, McKevitt testified that, during the altercation, Siscel had “tackled” her and Albertson had kicked and hit her. Id. at 12. She also testified that Albertson yelled for Siscel to “whoop [her] a**.” Id. at 13. McKevitt also testified to the various disputes that the neighbors had had since 2023, which included several calls to the police.

[6] Albertson testified in his defense that McKevitt and Siscel had argued and that McKevitt had picked up her dog and “held it up kind of like a weapon[.]” Id. at 45. Albertson stated that he then began “pointing and laughing” at McKevitt, and that McKevitt “got so angry” that she “started swinging” on Siscel. Id. He then testified that, after McKevitt swung at Siscel for the third or fourth time, he told Siscel to hit McKevitt back in order to “defend herself[.]” Id. at 46. He also testified that he never engaged in the altercation.

[7] At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that there was “clearly” a confrontation between Siscel and McKevitt. The court also found that “[w]hether or not Christopher Albertson actually threw a punch [or] kicked the victim” was not “pertinent” to whether he engaged in tumultuous conduct, so the court declined to give weight to McKevitt's testimony that Albertson had struck her. Id. at 70. But the court found that Albertson “provoke[d]” McKevitt and “elevat[ed] the situation” such that there was a possibility of serious bodily injury to McKevitt. Id. at 70-71. The court found Albertson guilty of disorderly conduct, entered judgment of conviction against him, and sentenced him to 180 days, with four days to be served in the county jail and the remainder to be served on probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Albertson asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[9] To show that Albertson committed disorderly conduct as charged, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally engaged in fighting or tumultuous conduct.² See Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). Tumultuous conduct is defined as “conduct that results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.” I.C. § 35-45-1-1.

[10] On appeal, Albertson contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence to show that he engaged in tumultuous conduct because Albertson “laughed at McKevitt but never displayed behavior of imminent violence toward her.” Appellant's Br. at 13. And he maintains that he merely “encouraged [his girlfriend] to defend herself” while she fought with McKevitt. Id.

[11] However, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment demonstrates that, when McKevitt's dog ran into Albertson and Siscel's yard, a verbal altercation ensued between McKevitt and Siscel and that the verbal altercation escalated into a physical one. The evidence also shows that Albertson provoked McKevitt by laughing at her. In addition, Albertson told Siscel to “hit” or “punch” McKevitt. Tr. Vol. 2 at 29-30.

[12] Stated differently, Albertson encouraged a physical fight between two neighbors who have a poor relationship with each other. Based on that evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Albertson had knowingly, or intentionally engaged in conduct that was likely to result in serious bodily injury to McKevitt. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Albertson engaged in tumultuous conduct. We therefore affirm his conviction for disorderly conduct.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   McKevitt was also charged for her involvement in the offense, and she pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

2.   The same subsection under which Albertson was charged also includes fighting. See I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). However, as outlined above, the court did not credit McKevitt's testimony that Albertson had engaged in fighting.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.