Roar v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 117

Victor Roar confronted Tracey Olive after she served an eviction notice on Roar’s sister, Ametrua, and removed the notice from the door.
Roar yelled at Olive, called her a “bitch,” and said, “if [she] came back on the property, he’d kill [her].”
State charged Roar with intimidation (initially Class D felony); following a bench trial court found him guilty but reduced conviction to a Class A misdemeanor.
Roar appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that his threat was intended to place Olive in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a later phone call by Ametrua.
The majority (Najam, J.) affirmed: the State produced sufficient evidence linking the threat to Olive’s prior lawful act (serving the eviction notice); any error in admitting the challenged phone call was harmless.
Judge May dissented, arguing the conditional language (“if…came back”) meant the threat targeted future conduct and did not show intent to retaliate for a prior lawful act, so the conviction should be reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roar)	Held
Sufficiency: Whether evidence showed Roar communicated a threat with intent to place Olive in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act	Roar threatened Olive immediately after she lawfully served an eviction notice on his sister; a reasonable fact-finder could infer intent to retaliate for that prior lawful act	The threat was conditional (“if you come back on the property”) and thus aimed at future conduct, so it cannot show intent to retaliate for a prior lawful act	Affirmed: conditional language does not conclusively negate intent; fact-finder could infer intent from timing, context, and nexus to the eviction notice
Evidentiary ruling: Admission of Ametrua’s later phone call to Olive	The call’s admission did not affect outcome because independent substantial evidence supported conviction	The call was improperly admitted and may have prejudiced the court	Affirmed: even if admission was error, it was harmless given independent evidence of guilt

Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2000) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate scope when reviewing sufficiency)
Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (intimidation requires proof of link to a prior lawful act)
C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (majority held conditional threats cannot show intent; later criticized in dissent)
Causey v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (followed C.L. majority reasoning)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (harmless-error test for improperly admitted evidence)
Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 2005) (penal statutes construed strictly in favor of the accused)