MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 10 2020, 10:38 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 Daniel Hageman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Lauren A. Jacobsen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven Walker, February 10, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1129 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marshelle Appellee-Plaintiff. Broadwell, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1901-CM-571
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Steven Walker appeals his conviction, after a bench trial for intimidation, a
Class A misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue [2] The sole issue on appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction.
Facts [3] Around midnight or 1 a.m. on January 5, 2019, Officers Aaron Laird and
Matthew Cook of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were
dispatched to Walker’s house in Marion County “for a domestic disturbance.”
Tr. Vol. II p. 6. Officers Laird and Cook first ensured that no one was in the
surrounding cars or yard before they knocked at Walker’s front door. When
Walker answered, the officers asked to speak with Walker and his girlfriend,
Angela Bumbalough. Walker exited the house and spoke with Officer Laird
outside; Officer Cook spoke with Bumbalough inside the house.
[4] Outside, Walker “began to yell[,]” “question[ed] why [the officers] were
there[,]” and “continued to ask who called [the police].” Id. at 15. Walker
shouted: “[Y]ou guys have no right to be here.” Id. at 9, 12. Officer Cook
could hear Walker shouting from inside the house. Id. at 9. Officer Cook went
outside and asked Walker why he was shouting; Walker replied: “[I]t’s none of
[your] business[.]” Id. at 7. The officers asked Walker to be quiet “[a]t least
twenty [ ] times.” Id. at 13. Walker continued to shout at the officers and used
expletives. The officers placed Walker under arrest for disorderly conduct. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6 After the officers arrested Walker, Walker told Officer Laird that Walker “was
going to beat” Officer Laird. Id. Subsequently, Walker “leaned toward[ ]
[Officer Laird] and said: ‘[J]ust wait, I got you.’” Id.
[5] On January 5, 2019, the State charged Walker with intimidation, a Class A
misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court
conducted a bench trial on April 18, 2019. Officers Laird and Cook testified to
the foregoing facts. Additionally, over defense counsel’s objection, Officer
Laird testified that he was previously dispatched to Walker’s house. On direct
examination of Officer Laird, the prosecutor asked: “. . .[W]hy would [Walker]
think that you would come back?” Officer Laird testified to his impression that
Walker warned of future violence, “[i]f [Officer Laird] was [ ] dispatched back
to [Walker’s] residence for any reason.” Id. at 13.
[6] During the defense’s case in chief, Bumbalough testified that: (1) she was still in
a relationship with Walker at the time of her testimony; (2) Bumbalough and
Walker had only a verbal argument on the night of the incident; and (3)
Bumbalough did not hear Walker threaten Officer Laird. Next, Walker
testified that no domestic disturbance occurred between Walker and
Bumbalough, and he did not threaten Officer Laird. Walker admitted that he
was “a little agitated[,]” shouted profanities, and that the officers asked him to
be quiet multiple times. Id. at 23. Walker testified further that the officers
“knew [his] background[.]” Id. at 24.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6 [7] At the close of the evidence, the trial court found Walker guilty of intimidation,
and not guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Walker to thirty
days in jail, twenty-eight days suspended, with two days of jail time credit.
Walker now appeals.
Analysis [8] Walker argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When
there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh
evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210
(Ind. 2016) (citing Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 84 (Ind. 1985), cert. denied).
Instead, “we ‘consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment
together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler,
481 N.E.2d at 84). “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by
‘substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that
evidence.’” Id.; see also McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018)
(holding that, even though there was conflicting evidence, it was “beside the
point” because that argument “misapprehend[s] our limited role as a reviewing
court”). Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017) (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d
144, 146 (Ind. 2007)).
[9] To convict Walker of intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove—as alleged in the charging information—that Walker
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6 communicated a threat to Officer Laird with the intent that Officer Laird be
placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2).
[10] Walker challenges only the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that Walker
intended to place Officer Laird in fear of retaliation for the prior lawful act of
investigating the domestic disturbance at Walker’s house. Walker’s Br. p. 9.
Walker concedes that he communicated a threat to Officer Laird, but maintains
that he did so with the intent that Officer Laird “not come back[.]” 1 Id. at 11.
[11] In support of his claim, Walker relies on Blackmon v. State, 32 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015); however, Blackmon is inapposite. The Blackmon panel reversed
the defendant’s conviction for intimidation 2 due to the weakness of the State’s
case. See Blackmon, 32 N.E.3d at 1185 (“Blackmon’s [trial] strategy relied on
the notion that, if he could show that [the victim] never caught him stealing [ ],
it would follow that his actions could not have been intended to place [the
victim] in fear of retaliation for that act.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 10 2020, 10:38 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 Daniel Hageman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Lauren A. Jacobsen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven Walker, February 10, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1129 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marshelle Appellee-Plaintiff. Broadwell, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1901-CM-571
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Steven Walker appeals his conviction, after a bench trial for intimidation, a
Class A misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue [2] The sole issue on appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction.
Facts [3] Around midnight or 1 a.m. on January 5, 2019, Officers Aaron Laird and
Matthew Cook of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were
dispatched to Walker’s house in Marion County “for a domestic disturbance.”
Tr. Vol. II p. 6. Officers Laird and Cook first ensured that no one was in the
surrounding cars or yard before they knocked at Walker’s front door. When
Walker answered, the officers asked to speak with Walker and his girlfriend,
Angela Bumbalough. Walker exited the house and spoke with Officer Laird
outside; Officer Cook spoke with Bumbalough inside the house.
[4] Outside, Walker “began to yell[,]” “question[ed] why [the officers] were
there[,]” and “continued to ask who called [the police].” Id. at 15. Walker
shouted: “[Y]ou guys have no right to be here.” Id. at 9, 12. Officer Cook
could hear Walker shouting from inside the house. Id. at 9. Officer Cook went
outside and asked Walker why he was shouting; Walker replied: “[I]t’s none of
[your] business[.]” Id. at 7. The officers asked Walker to be quiet “[a]t least
twenty [ ] times.” Id. at 13. Walker continued to shout at the officers and used
expletives. The officers placed Walker under arrest for disorderly conduct. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6 After the officers arrested Walker, Walker told Officer Laird that Walker “was
going to beat” Officer Laird. Id. Subsequently, Walker “leaned toward[ ]
[Officer Laird] and said: ‘[J]ust wait, I got you.’” Id.
[5] On January 5, 2019, the State charged Walker with intimidation, a Class A
misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court
conducted a bench trial on April 18, 2019. Officers Laird and Cook testified to
the foregoing facts. Additionally, over defense counsel’s objection, Officer
Laird testified that he was previously dispatched to Walker’s house. On direct
examination of Officer Laird, the prosecutor asked: “. . .[W]hy would [Walker]
think that you would come back?” Officer Laird testified to his impression that
Walker warned of future violence, “[i]f [Officer Laird] was [ ] dispatched back
to [Walker’s] residence for any reason.” Id. at 13.
[6] During the defense’s case in chief, Bumbalough testified that: (1) she was still in
a relationship with Walker at the time of her testimony; (2) Bumbalough and
Walker had only a verbal argument on the night of the incident; and (3)
Bumbalough did not hear Walker threaten Officer Laird. Next, Walker
testified that no domestic disturbance occurred between Walker and
Bumbalough, and he did not threaten Officer Laird. Walker admitted that he
was “a little agitated[,]” shouted profanities, and that the officers asked him to
be quiet multiple times. Id. at 23. Walker testified further that the officers
“knew [his] background[.]” Id. at 24.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6 [7] At the close of the evidence, the trial court found Walker guilty of intimidation,
and not guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Walker to thirty
days in jail, twenty-eight days suspended, with two days of jail time credit.
Walker now appeals.
Analysis [8] Walker argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. When
there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh
evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210
(Ind. 2016) (citing Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 84 (Ind. 1985), cert. denied).
Instead, “we ‘consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment
together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler,
481 N.E.2d at 84). “We will affirm the judgment if it is supported by
‘substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some conflict in that
evidence.’” Id.; see also McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018)
(holding that, even though there was conflicting evidence, it was “beside the
point” because that argument “misapprehend[s] our limited role as a reviewing
court”). Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017) (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d
144, 146 (Ind. 2007)).
[9] To convict Walker of intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove—as alleged in the charging information—that Walker
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6 communicated a threat to Officer Laird with the intent that Officer Laird be
placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2).
[10] Walker challenges only the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that Walker
intended to place Officer Laird in fear of retaliation for the prior lawful act of
investigating the domestic disturbance at Walker’s house. Walker’s Br. p. 9.
Walker concedes that he communicated a threat to Officer Laird, but maintains
that he did so with the intent that Officer Laird “not come back[.]” 1 Id. at 11.
[11] In support of his claim, Walker relies on Blackmon v. State, 32 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2015); however, Blackmon is inapposite. The Blackmon panel reversed
the defendant’s conviction for intimidation 2 due to the weakness of the State’s
case. See Blackmon, 32 N.E.3d at 1185 (“Blackmon’s [trial] strategy relied on
the notion that, if he could show that [the victim] never caught him stealing [ ],
it would follow that his actions could not have been intended to place [the
victim] in fear of retaliation for that act.”).
[12] Here, unlike the circumstances in Blackmon, the State presented ample evidence
from which a reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. See Love, 73 N.E.3d at 696. The record reveals
1 Walker argues that, at best, the State proved that he communicated the threat to Officer Laird with the intent to stop Officer Laird from coming back to Walker’s house. See Walker’s Br. p. 11 (“Walker’s threat intimates his intent that Officer Laird engage in conduct against his will; that he not come back. Although this established the intent required under subsection (a)(1) of the intimidation statute, Walker was not charged under this subsection.”).
2 Blackmon was charged with intimidation as a Level 5 felony because Blackmon drew a deadly weapon when he communicated the threat.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 5 of 6 that: (1) Walker and Officer Laird were familiar with one another before the
incident, because Officer Laird was previously dispatched to Walker’s house;
(2) on January 5, 2019, Officer Laird was again dispatched to Walker’s house;
(3) Walker was angry that an unidentified person called the police and that the
police were on his property; (4) Walker shouted profanities at the officers and
disregarded at least twenty orders to be quiet; (5) the officers arrested Walker
for disorderly conduct; and (6) after Walker’s arrest, Walker threatened to
“beat” Officer Laird and told Officer Laird: “[J]ust wait, I got you.” See Tr.
Vol. II p. 13.
[13] One can reasonably infer that Walker’s threats were intended to place Officer
Laird in fear of retaliation for the prior lawful act of performing law
enforcement duties, i.e., investigating an alleged domestic disturbance and
making an arrest. The foregoing evidence sufficiently supports Walker’s
conviction pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-45-2-1(a)(2). See Townsend v.
State, 753 N.E.2d 88, 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“. . . [T]he jury could reasonably
infer from the circumstances that Townsend’s threats were made with the intent
to place Officer Richards in fear of retaliation for arresting him.”), abrogated on
other grounds by Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1209 n.9 (Ind. 2007)).
Conclusion [14] Sufficient evidence exists to support Walker’s conviction. We affirm.
[15] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Vaidik, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1129 | February 10, 2020 Page 6 of 6