On February 28, 2025, the Ball State University Board of Trustees held a public meeting on campus. The meeting was well attended by members of the public, including several people who were protesting an appointment that the Board was expected to make. Cooper Archer was among the protesters. One-by-one, he and several others stood up during the meeting, made a short speech in disagreement with the Board’s decision, and were peacefully escorted out of the meeting. The entire disruption of the meeting lasted about ninety seconds. The next month, the State charged Archer with two counts of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct for his role in the ninety-second disruption of the Board’s public meeting. 

Several weeks prior to his trial, Archer made clear that he intended to interpose an affirmative defense at his jury trial invoking his freedom-of-expression rights under the Indiana Constitution. The State never sought to prohibit Archer from doing so. And, at his ensuing jury trial, the State presented the testimony of one witness (Ball State University’s Chief of Police) and a video recording that showed the entirety of the disruption.

Following the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Archer moved for a directed verdict in accordance with Indiana Trial Rule 50 on the theory that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the charges against him. The trial court agreed, stating that the State’s evidence “[d]idn’t even come close to . . . support[ing] the charges.” The court thus granted Archer’s motion for a directed verdict and acquitted him of both counts. 

The State now purports to appeal a reserved question of law following an acquittal under Indiana Code section 35-38-4-2(a)(4). In particular, the State appears to argue that the trial court accepted Archer’s putative affirmative defense before he presented any evidence on it and, in doing so, inappropriately applied the law of Trial Rule 50 and the law underlying the putative affirmative defense. We have also asked the parties to argue whether the State’s pursuit of this appeal is consistent with our Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Gary v. Nicholson, 190 N.E.3d 349, 351-52 (Ind. 2022) (holding that standing under the terms of a statute is not sufficient in and of itself to establish constitutional standing).

The scheduled panelists are Judge Bailey, Judge Mathias, and Judge Scheele