Donnetta Newell v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 176
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Newell, a Harmony Park Place resident, confronted Growe about eviction and damages and made threatening statements about the manager.
- Growe believed Newell’s statements could be carried out and notified the manager, who later received updates and security was increased.
- Newell’s statements led to continued intimidation; Growe observed Newell and associates outside the manager’s office and yelling threats over several days.
- Newell was charged with intimidation, a class A misdemeanor, and the case proceeded to a bench trial where she was convicted.
- On appeal, Newell argues the statements were venting, not threats, and that evidence of a prior desk-damage incident should have been inadmissible.
- The appellate court affirms, holding the evidence supported a true-threat finding and the prior-act evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) for relevant purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Newell’s statement a true threat? | Newell argues it was venting, not a threat. | Newell contends the statement lacked the intent to threaten. | Yes; reasonable fact-finder could deem a true threat. |
| Was the prior desk incident admissible under Rule 404(b)? | Past violence supports intent to intimidate. | Past act evidence is prejudicial and merits exclusion. | Yes; admissible for intent/plan and to show reaction to threat. |
| Was the prior-act evidence properly balanced under Rule 403? | Evidence warranted by probative value to prove intimidation. | Trial court abused discretion by admitting prejudicial evidence. | No; court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Was there sufficient evidence the threat was communicated to Young? | Growe’s duties made him an effective conduit to Young. | Lack of direct communication to Young undermines conviction. | Yes; communication established through Growe's role and circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (content, context, and listener reaction determine true threat)
- Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (communication may be through any means; not limited to direct transmission)
- Walls v. State, 993 N.E.2d 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (communication of a threat to a third party can satisfy requirement)
- Ceaser v. State, 964 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Rule 404(b) purposes are illustrative; includes intent, plan, knowledge)
- Duvall v. State, 978 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (assessing risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility of evidence)