In McCaskill v. State,
3 N.E.3d 1047 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014), an intimidation prosecution, the State failed
to prove that Rakiea McCaskill communicated a threat with the intent that the
complaining witness, Tamika Matlock, engage in conduct against her will: i.e., to leave her husband and/or
cause her husband to leave her. See
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1).
McCaskill had a one-year-old child with Matlock's husband
when McCaskill called Matlock four times and threatened to beat her up. She also said she was outside of Matlock’s
home. The Court of Appeals noted there
was insufficient evidence of McCaskill’s intent because she never specified the
reason for her threats toward Matlock.
At trial, Matlock admitted she did not know why McCaskill
wanted to beat her up. The State argued
that because McCaskill and Matlock do not have a relationship other than
through the husband, McCaskill’s aim must have been for Matlock to leave her
husband, and thus there was enough circumstantial evidence to show intent. But McCaskill had been in a relationship with
the husband for several years before threatening Matlock and “it is not clear
why McCaskill would suddenly start threatening Matlock with that aim.”
Although intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence,
the conclusion that McCaskill intended to make Matlock leave her husband was
pure speculation and not a logical inference.
Because the State argued at trial for the lesser-included offense of
Class B misdemeanor harassment, which was supported by the evidence, the court
entered judgment of conviction on that charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment