MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Paula M. Sauer

Danville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of C.B., a Child 

alleged to be Delinquent,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

November 9, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A01-1604-JV-873

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Karen M. Love, 

Judge.

Cause No. 32D03-1512-JD-337

Barteau, Senior Judge

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 1 of 7
Statement of the Case

[1] C.B. was adjudicated a delinquent for committing an act that would be 

intimidation,1

a Level 6 felony, if committed by an adult. C.B. now appeals, 

contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his adjudication. We 

affirm.

Issue

[2] The sole issue presented in the appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence of a 

prior lawful act to support C.B.’s adjudication.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In November of 2015, Christine Pate was the manager of the Woodland Trace 

Mobile Home Community in Plainfield, Indiana. Part of Pate’s duties were to 

oversee the tenants and the properties, and to ensure that the children living 

there were complying with park rules. During the four to five years she had 

held this job, Pate had many encounters with C.B., who was twelve years old in 

November of 2015. She described many of the interactions with him as 

addressing general “orneriness.” Tr. p. 43. On one recent occasion, however,

C.B. was “caught defacing a light pole with a spray can of paint.” Id. After 

Pate brought C.B.’s parents to the scene, C.B. yelled at Pate that “this is not 

over until I say it’s over.” Id. C.B.’s mother chased him around the pole, 

1 Ind. Code § § 35-45-2-1(a)(2) and (b)(1)(A) (2014). 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 2 of 7

 
“smacking at him.” Id. Other damage had occurred in the park, but could not 

be directly attributed to C.B. 

[4] C.B. testified that he was getting in trouble with Pate for “doing fun stuff” with 

his friends. Id. at 53. He thought that she was mean and that she had told him 

to stop having fun “about 500 times.” Id.

[5] On November 18, 2015—a Wednesday, which was Pate’s day off—at around 

4:00 p.m., Pate was at home watching television. C.B. had gotten off the bus 

and went directly to Pate’s trailer. Pate described on direct examination what 

happened next as follows:

It was a Wednesday, it was after 4:00 Wednesday so usually my 

day off. [C.B.] came to my home banged on my door, not 

knocked, banged after school. I opened the door and he stands 

there screaming at me, I know what you’re doing, I know what 

you’re doing, you’re getting rid of X—I cannot say the tenants

[sic] names—then you’re going to get rid of X and then us. He 

said I’ll get a gun and come shoot you. . . . I told him to get off 

my deck, not once but twice I told him to get off my deck. He 

walked down the steps, turned around and gave me his dead 

stare and then walked down the street to his house.

Id. at 42-45.

[6] The following exchange took place on cross-examination:

Q: You said that [C.B.] said I know you are evicting X and 

then Y and then us and you said the first part of that 

statement is true, what do you mean by that?

A: We did evict someone out of the park that he was talking 

about.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 3 of 7
Q: And this was on November 18th?

A: It was on a Wednesday, the date, I’ll say it’s the 18th, I 

don’t remember the exact date. It was after 4:00 when the 

bus let the kids out.

Id. at 46. 

[7] On December 18, 2015, the State filed a delinquency petition against C.B. 

alleging that he had committed the crime of intimidation, a Level 6 felony if 

committed by an adult. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing on March 

14, 2016, the juvenile court found that the State had proved beyond a 

reasonable doubt that C.B. had committed the offense, but took the matter 

under advisement because the charging document specified the wrong victim. 

On April 4, 2016, the juvenile court entered a true finding of intimidation and 

placed C.B. on supervised probation for six months. C.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] When the State alleges that a juvenile should be adjudicated a delinquent for 

committing an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State 

must prove every element of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Al-Saud v. 

State, 658 N.E.2d 907, 908 (Ind. 1995). On appellate review of a challenge of 

the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of the witnesses. Id. We will consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences therefrom. J.B. v. State, 

748 N.E.2d 914, 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We will affirm if the evidence and 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 4 of 7
those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support 

the judgment. Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709, 712 (Ind. 1998).

[9] The charging document alleged that C.B. “did communicate a threat to another 

student, with the intent that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for 

a prior lawful act, to-wit: stated ‘I know what you are trying to do evicting

Alex in Lot 5 and trying to get rid of Heather Neal in Lot 28 and us. . . I will get 

a gun and come back and shoot you.’ The threat was to commit a forcible 

felony.” Appellant’s App. p. 16. The juvenile delinquency report submitted to 

the juvenile court correctly identified the victim as Pate and not another 

student. Id. at 6. The report further alleged that “Pate stated that she was 

planning on evicting the Lot 5 resident due to lot violations but the others that 

[C.B.] thought she was trying to evict was incorrect.” Id.

[10] The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that C.B. 

communicated a threat to Pate with the intent to place Pate in fear of retaliation 

for a prior lawful act. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-(a)(2) & (b)(1)(A). To establish that 

C.B. committed intimidation, the State must prove that the legal act occurred 

prior to the threat. C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798, 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If the 

threat does not place the person in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, then 

the conviction or adjudication cannot stand. Id.

[11] Considering the evidence most favorable to the adjudication, there is evidence 

of a threat to commit a forcible felony communicated to Pate with the intent to 

place Pate in fear. The issue here is whether the evidence is sufficient to 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 5 of 7
establish that the lawful act occurred before the threat was made. The trial 

court, as fact-finder, correctly concluded that the State presented sufficient 

evidence that the lawful act occurred before C.B.’s threat was made.

[12] In Roar v. State, 52 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. granted, 54 N.E.3d 

371 (Ind. 2016), sufficiency adopted and incorporated by reference, 54 N.E.3d 1001 

(Ind. 2016), the threat, which placed the landlord in fear, was communicated to 

her after the defendant saw the landlord place an eviction notice on the 

defendant’s sister’s door. Therefore, the threat came after and in retaliation for 

the prior lawful act—placing the eviction notice on the tenant’s door. 

[13] Likewise, here, evidence was presented that C.B.’s threat came after a prior 

lawful act. The delinquency report stated that Pate was planning on evicting 

the Lot 5 resident. Appellant’s App. p. 6. Her testimony at the fact-finding 

hearing was that C.B. screamed that he knew “what you’re doing, I know what 

you’re doing, you’re getting rid of X. . . .” Tr. p. 43. On cross-examination, 

Pate stated that “we did evict someone out of the park that he was talking 

about.” Id. at 46. The record reflects that Pate, in her capacity as manager of 

the mobile home community, had made the decision to evict the tenants in Lot 

5, referred to by C.B. in his subsequent threat, for lot violations. Although the 

record does not clearly establish precisely when the eviction took place, the 

record does reflect that the decision to evict had been made and that C.B. was 

aware of that decision prior to making his threat. Therefore, the evidence is 

sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a prior lawful act. 

Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s adjudication.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion

[14] In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s adjudication of C.B. as a 

delinquent child.

[15] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1604-JV-873 | November 9, 2016 Page 7 of 7