Case Title: Falls v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 19S-CR-557

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-557 
Rodney W. Falls, 
Appellant-Defendant,  
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee-Plaintiff 
Decided: October 8, 2019 
Appeal from the Kosciusko Superior Court, No. 43D03-1802-F6-166 
The Honorable Joe V. Sutton, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,  
No. 18A-CR-2948  
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 08 2019, 11:37 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-557 | October 8, 2019 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
A Kosciusko County jury convicted Rodney Falls of stalking, a Level 6 
felony, for following college student A.G.’s vehicle for more than two 
hours as she attempted to evade him. Falls’s relentless pursuit of A.G. 
ended only after she pulled into the parking lot of the Warsaw Police 
Department for the second time and sought help.  
The Court of Appeals affirmed Falls’s conviction and sentence. It held 
that, under the totality of the circumstances, Falls’s actions fit the statutory 
definition of stalking, which requires repeated or continuing harassment, 
even though his actions took place over the course of less than three 
hours.  
We grant transfer to reaffirm that a charge of stalking may be 
supported by conduct that is continuous in nature, even if it is a single 
episode.   
Background and Procedural History 
On the morning of February 13, 2018, as 19-year-old A.G. was stopped 
at a red light during the trip from Valparaiso back to her college in the 
Warsaw area, she observed Falls waving from the vehicle next to her. A.G. 
ignored Falls, but she noticed that he immediately got behind her as she 
drove away, and continued to follow her—mimicking her actions, 
traveling down the same roads, and trailing closely behind her—for the 
next hour to hour and a half. Running low on gas but afraid she would be 
in danger if she stopped, A.G. decided to continue to Warsaw.  
After exiting the highway in Warsaw, A.G. took a circuitous route, 
driving up and down the same side streets to ensure that it was not a 
coincidence that Falls continued to follow her. A.G. drove to the Warsaw 
Police Department for help, but when she parked in the station’s parking 
lot, Falls pulled in between A.G.’s vehicle and the building entrance.  
A.G. returned to the residential streets, and again, Falls followed her. 
A.G. called 911 to confirm that the police department was open, and then 
sped to the station to try to lose Falls. When she returned to the station, 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-557 | October 8, 2019 
Page 3 of 5 
she parked in the same parking space and quickly walked to the front 
door, only to see Falls park next to her vehicle and wave at her again.  
The police chief’s assistant, who earlier had observed the two vehicles 
pull into the parking lot and then quickly leave, saw A.G. walk into the 
station entrance looking “very frightened.” She immediately buzzed A.G. 
into the building without first asking her to state her business, although 
this went against protocol. A sergeant went to talk with and subsequently 
arrest Falls for stalking. During a search of Falls’s vehicle, which was 
impounded after his arrest, the sergeant found a baggie of marijuana. 
Falls was charged with one count of Level 6 felony stalking and one 
count of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. A jury found him 
guilty as charged, and Falls was sentenced to 30 months for the stalking 
conviction and six months, suspended to probation, for the possession of 
marijuana conviction. 
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient 
to support the stalking conviction because Falls’s actions amounted to 
repeated or continuing harassment or impermissible contact. Falls v. State, 
130 N.E.3d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). The decision rejected the contention 
that Falls had to follow A.G. “a certain number of times or for a certain 
number of hours in order for his actions to constitute stalking.” Id. at 623. 
Discussion and Decision 
In Indiana, stalking is defined as “a knowing or an intentional course of 
conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person 
that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, 
intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel 
terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.” Ind. Code § 35-45-10-1. 
“Harassment” is “conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is 
not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would 
cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually 
causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.” Id. § 35-45-10-2. And 
Indiana Code section 35-45-10-3 defines “impermissible contact” to 
include “[f]ollowing or pursuing the victim.”  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-557 | October 8, 2019 
Page 4 of 5 
Six years after Indiana’s anti-stalking statutes were enacted, the 
appellate courts addressed for the first time a situation in which the 
alleged act of stalking occurred over the course of less than one day. 
Johnson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 327, 332-33 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. 
The Court of Appeals concluded that “the term ‘repeated’ in Indiana’s 
anti-stalking law means ‘more than once.’” Id. at 332-33. But it ultimately 
affirmed the defendant’s stalking conviction, holding that his commission 
of harassing acts against the victim on three separate occasions over the 
course of a five-hour period constituted repeated acts of harassment.  
Following Johnson, the Court of Appeals has issued at least two 
opinions addressing stalking charges in cases where the defendant’s 
conduct was not repeated. See C.S. v. T.K., 118 N.E.3d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2019) (reversing the defendant’s stalking conviction where evidence 
supported one episode of harassment that lasted just a few minutes); but 
see S.B. v. Seymour Community Schools, 97 N.E.3d 288, 295-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2018), reh’g denied (affirming the defendant’s stalking conviction and 
finding that defendant’s single act of standing outside a high school with a 
firearm and protest sign constituted “a course of conduct involving 
continuous harassment.”), trans. denied.  
Here, the Court of Appeals held that, under the totality of the 
circumstances, Falls’s actions fit the statutory definition of stalking. Falls, 
130 N.E.3d at 623. In support, it cited Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 
1101 (Ind. 2012), in which we held that, absent a more specific statutory 
time frame, “the trier of fact should determine if the course of conduct 
involv[ed] repeated or continuing harassment.” Id. at 1101. Applying 
Nicholson, the Court of Appeals found that “[t]here is no statutory 
definition of ‘repeated,’ so it was ultimately the jury’s obligation to 
determine whether Falls’s actions amounted to repeated or continuing 
harassment or impermissible contact.” 130 N.E.3d at 624. 
However, while the anti-stalking statutes themselves do not define 
“repeated,” Indiana’s appellate courts have long held that “the term 
‘repeated’ in Indiana’s anti-stalking law means ‘more than once.’” 
Nicholson, 963 N.E.2d at 1101, citing Johnson, 721 N.E.2d at 332-33. This 
does not mean that Falls is entitled to acquittal—his actions of following 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-557 | October 8, 2019 
Page 5 of 5 
A.G. in his vehicle for two and one-half hours, despite her efforts to evade 
him, certainly fall within the statutory definition of “continuing 
harassment,” which expressly includes “[f]ollowing or pursuing” the 
victim. I.C. §§ 35-45-10-1, -3. But because Falls’s conduct was not 
“repeated,” we grant transfer to clarify this portion of the Court of 
Appeals opinion and to reaffirm that a charge of stalking may be 
supported by conduct that is purely continuous in nature. 
Conclusion 
We find that Falls’s conduct on February 13, 2018 met the statutory 
definition of “continuing” harassment, thereby supporting his conviction 
for stalking as a Level 6 felony. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals 
opinion in all other respects. See App. R. 58(A)(2).   
All Justices concur.  
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T, R O D N E Y F A LLS  
Donald R. Shuler 
Goshen, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L E E, ST AT E O F I N DI AN A  
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Tiffany A. McCoy 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana