Harold E. Chastain v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 280
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On March 8, 2013, Harold Chastain and Tracy Wilmore were arguing in a restaurant parking lot; Chastain shoved Wilmore.
- Justin Beegle intervened to stop the confrontation; a verbal exchange ensued between Beegle and Chastain.
- Chastain retrieved a handgun, pointed it at Beegle, and repeatedly said "I'll f*ing kill you," then drove away.
- The State charged Chastain with Class C felony intimidation (threat to retaliate for a prior lawful act while using a deadly weapon), Class D felony pointing a firearm, and Class B misdemeanor battery; the pointing-a-firearm count was merged into the intimidation conviction at sentencing.
- The charging information did not specify the prior lawful act; at trial the State argued the prior lawful act was Beegle’s interruption of the fight.
- The jury convicted on all counts; Chastain appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence for the intimidation conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove Chastain intended to place Beegle in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act under the intimidation statute | State: Beegle lawfully intervened to stop the fight; Chastain pointed a gun and threatened to kill him in response — intent can be inferred from circumstances | Chastain: No proof of intent to retaliate for a prior lawful act; parallels to precedents reversing intimidation convictions (e.g., Casey, Ransley, Blackmon) | Court: Sufficient evidence — reasonable inference that the threat was in retaliation for Beegle’s interruption; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (reversing intimidation conviction where no evidence the threat related to a prior lawful act)
- Ransley v. State, 850 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (reversing where anger alone, without proof of retaliatory intent for a prior act, insufficient)
- Blackmon v. State, 32 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (insufficient evidence that defendant threatened in retaliation for the alleged prior act alleged in charging information)
- Causey v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reversing where threat appeared conditional and related to future conduct, not a past lawful act)
- Roar v. State, 52 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (holding a conditional threat can support intimidation when facts permit an inference the threat targeted a prior lawful act; analysis later adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review: view probative evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict)