Rakiea McCaskill v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 59
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- McCaskill had a long-standing relationship with Matlock's husband and a child with him.
- McCaskill threatened Matlock by phone and Facebook between Oct. 28–29, 2012.
- Charged Dec. 10, 2012 with Class A misdemeanor intimidation under I.C. 35-45-2-1(a)(1) for attempting to cause Matlock to leave her husband.
- At trial, Matlock testified McCaskill wanted her husband to leave; McCaskill claimed threats were due to past conflicts.
- Trial court convicted McCaskill and sentenced 365 days with 363 suspended; on appeal, conviction for intimidation was reversed for lack of proven intent, and harassment was found as a lesser offense with remand instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent under I.C. 35-45-2-1(a)(1). | State argues intent may be inferred from relationship with Husband. | McCaskill contends no explicit reason for threats; intent not shown. | Insufficient evidence of intent; intimidation reversed. |
| Harassment as a lesser offense—sufficiency and remand. | State sought conviction for harassment if intimidation fails. | McCaskill does not contest harassment. | Harassment proven; remand to enter Class B misdemeanor conviction and vacate intimidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, with proper inference)
- Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (threats without stated reasons may be insufficient to prove specific intent)
- Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Defries v. State, 342 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. 1976) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove intent)