3 N.E.3d 1047
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- McCaskill appealed a conviction for Class A misdemeanor intimidation.
- Matlock is the husband’s wife with whom McCaskill had a child by the husband.
- McCaskill threatened Matlock, including via calls and Facebook, asserting she would beat Matlock and indicating she was outside Matlock’s house.
- State charged McCaskill with intent to cause Matlock to leave her husband against her will.
- Trial was a bench trial; Matlock testified about the threats and McCaskill testified she threatened due to past conflict, not a stated reason.
- The trial court convicted McCaskill, but the appellate court reversed and remanded to convict for Class B harassment instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of intent for intimidation | McCaskill’s intent to cause Matlock to leave her husband is inferred from relationship | No clear reason for threats; intent not proven beyond circumstantial inference | Insufficient evidence for Class A intimidation; remanded for harboring harassment |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (sufficiency standard for evidence on appeal)
- Lee v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Defries v. State, 342 N.E.2d 622 (Ind.1965) (circumstantial evidence allowed to prove intent)
- Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (relevance of unexplained threats when no specific prior act identified)