State of Missouri v. Frank George Jindra, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1210

In Feb. 2015 Frank Jindra filed two adult-abuse petitions; Judge Leslie Schneider denied them.
Jindra called deputy clerk Latoya Gatewood, said Schneider "would be on the NBC 17 news" and that he was "going to get his gun;" Gatewood perceived this as a serious threat.
Jindra called the law firm where Judge Schneider’s husband worked, became belligerent, and told a receptionist that something like what occurred in his parking lot might happen in the firm’s private parking lot; employees were escorted to their cars.
Deputies later contacted Jindra at home; he opened the door holding a rifle, then handed it to an officer. He admitted making the statements and said he had “promised to shoot them in the legs.”
Charged with two counts of tampering with a judicial officer under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.084 (one count for the Gatewood call; one for contacting the husband/firm). A jury convicted on both counts; court imposed consecutive county-jail terms (six-month sentence suspended in favor of 5 years probation).
On appeal Jindra challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on both counts; the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did statements to Gatewood show purposeful harassment/intimidation of Judge Schneider?	State: Gatewood reasonably construed Jindra’s angry statement about NBC 17 and a gun as a threat to shoot Schneider, proving intent to harass/intimidate.	Jindra: Remarks were stray comments about petition subjects, not threats aimed at Schneider.	Court: Sufficient evidence; jury could find the remarks were threats and thus made with the purpose to harass/intimidate.
Sufficiency: Was contacting Schneider’s husband reasonably calculated to harass/alarm Judge Schneider?	State: Jindra’s veiled threat to the firm (referencing what happened in his parking lot) and his known history made it reasonable to infer the communication would alarm Schneider.	Jindra: Contacts were attempts to secure ex parte assistance, not conduct reasonably calculated to alarm or harass Schneider.	Court: Sufficient evidence; jury could infer the communication was a threat reasonably calculated to harass/alarm Schneider.

State v. Hamilton, 130 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. App. 2004) (standard for sufficiency review and viewing evidence favorably to verdict)
State v. Holmes, 491 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. App. 2016) (factual interpretation of ambiguous statements is for the jury)
State v. Green, 798 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. App. 1990) (jury resolves conflicting interpretations of defendant’s statements)
State v. Sproling, 752 S.W.2d 884 (Mo. App. 1988) (jury determines meaning of ambiguous remarks)
Hamilton v. State, 208 S.W.3d 344 (Mo. App. 2006) (conduct reasonably calculated to harass/alarm where threat was tied to defendant’s violent propensities)
U.S. v. Wagstaff, 865 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1989) (intimidation requires conduct reasonably calculated to produce fear)
U.S. v. Amos, 566 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1977) (same)
U.S. v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1987) (ordinary-person test for inferring threat of bodily harm)