M.L.H. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 16 2019, 6:14 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven E. Ripstra Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ripstra Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Jasper, Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
M.L.H., September 16, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-564
v. Appeal from the
Dubois Circuit Court and the
State of Indiana, Martin Circuit Court
Appellee-Petitioner. The Honorable
Nathan A. Verkamp, Judge
(Dubois)
The Honorable
Lynne E. Ellis, Judge (Martin)
Trial Court Cause Nos.
19C01-1802-JD-72
51C01-1810-JD-85
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 1 of 7
[1] Contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication as a
delinquent child, M.L.H. appeals the juvenile court’s determination that he
committed two counts of intimidation, which would have been Level 6 felonies
if committed by an adult.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] M.L.H. was an eighth-grade student at Jasper Middle School in Dubois
County, Indiana. On February 14, 2018, M.L.H. made threatening statements
to three classmates. M.L.H. told T.W., a classmate, that M.L.H. wanted to
commit a crime identical to the Parkland, Florida shootings. Tr. Vol. 2 at 59.
Another classmate, N.R.H., heard M.L.H. say, “That he wanted -- that he
hated everybody in the school and wanted to shoot the school up on the last
day, and everybody in it.” Id. at 7. She also heard M.L.H. say that he planned
to “shoot all the teachers and students” on the last day of school. State’s Ex. 2.
Another student, H.R., heard M.L.H. talking about guns and his desire to shoot
people; H.R. also heard that M.L.H. had a list of people to shoot. Tr. Vol. 2 at
51-52.
[4] School officials were notified two or three days after M.L.H. made the
threatening statements. M.L.H. was suspended by school personnel for one
day and then returned to his regular classes. He was again suspended by the
school on the evening before the last day of classes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[5] On February 26, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that M.L.H. had
committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute three separate
acts of intimidation as a Level 6 felony. A fact-finding hearing was held in the
Dubois Circuit Court on July 13, 2018, and, on July 18, 2018, the juvenile court
found M.L.H. to be a delinquent child for having committed two counts of
intimidation for the actions directed at T.W. and N.R.H.
[6] After the hearing in Dubois County, M.L.H. moved his residence to Martin
County, and the matter was transferred to the Martin Circuit Court on
September 25, 2018. A dispositional hearing was held on December 19, 2018,
and, pursuant to an agreed disposition, the juvenile court placed M.L.H. on
probation for six months and ordered him to perform sixteen hours of
community corrections, make restitution, submit to counselling, and pay the
costs and fees of the proceeding. M.L.H. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] When the State petitions to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent for
committing an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, it must
prove every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. H.J. v. State, 746
N.E.2d 400, 402-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In reviewing a juvenile delinquency
adjudication, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment
and the reasonable inferences therefrom. C.S. v. State, 735 N.E.2d 273, 276
(Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 3 of 7
[8] At the time M.L.H. made his statements, the intimidation statute, Indiana
Code section 35-45-2-1, provided, in relevant part:
(a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with
the intent:
....
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior
lawful act; or
(3) of:
(A) causing:
(i) a dwelling, a building, or other structure; or
....
to be evacuated; or
(B) interfering with the occupancy of:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
....
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 4 of 7
(1) Level 6 felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
....
(d) “Threat” means an expression, by words or action, of an
intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or
damage property;
....
(3) commit a crime;[or]
....
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another
structure, or a vehicle.
[9] Whether any given statement constitutes a threat is an objective question for the
trier of fact. Newell v. State, 7 N.E.3d 367, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied. The defendant’s intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence alone,
and knowledge and intent may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
each case. Chastain v. State, 58 N.E.3d 235, 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans.
denied. A defendant need not speak directly with a victim to communicate a
threat for purposes of Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1. E.B. v. State, 89 N.E.3d
1087, 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). To communicate a threat for purposes of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 5 of 7
offense of intimidation, the statement must be transmitted in such a way that
the defendant knows or has good reason to know the statement will reach the
victim. See Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035, 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
[10] In S.D. v. State, 847 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, a juvenile
told a teacher and several students that she would kill another teacher (who was
not in the room) and use grenades to blow up the school, and she did not care if
the listeners told the absent teacher. Id. at 256. This court determined S.D.
communicated the threat because she knew or had good reason to know that
the victim would hear her statements. Id. at 258-59. See also, Newell, 7 N.E.3d
at 370 ( finding sufficient evidence that the defendant intended to communicate
a threat to the victim, the manager of an apartment complex, because defendant
made the threat in the presence of a security guard who the defendant knew
would report the threat to the manager).
[11] M.L.H. contends that he was just talking to himself when he made the
statements at issue and that there was no communication of the threats. A
number of M.L.H.’s classmates disputed M.L.H’s contention that he was just
talking to himself when he made his threats. T.W. heard M.L.H. say that he
wanted to mirror the Parkland, Florida shooting and “wanted to do the same
thing.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 59. N.R.H., another classmate, said she heard M.L.H. say
that he “hated most people in the school,” was “going to shoot up the school on
the last day,” and “shoot all the teachers and students.” Id. at 7; State’s Ex. 2.
Yet another classmate stated that she heard, on multiple occasions, M.L.H.
talking about guns and his desire to shoot people. Tr. Vol. 2 at 51-52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[12] Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1 defines the crime of intimidation, in operative
part, as a person who communicates a threat with the intent of causing a
building to be evacuated or interfering with the occupancy of a building. The
offense is a Level 6 felony if the threat is to commit a forcible felony. Ind. Code
§ 35-45-2-1(b)(1)(A). Here, M.L.H.’s threats interfered with the occupancy of
the school building by other students and constituted intimidation. As the last
day of school approached, a number of students asked the principal whether it
would be safe to attend on the last day of school and over 100 students did not
attend -- the highest number of absences in the assistant principal’s memory.
M.L.H. threatened to shoot his classmates. Had M.L.H. been an adult, his
threat to commit a forcible felony would have constituted a Level 6 felony. The
evidence presented was sufficient to support M.L.H.’s delinquency adjudication
for two counts of intimidation.
[13] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-564 | September 16, 2019 Page 7 of 7