Thomas Schultheis v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

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 Jun 26 2014, 8:50 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JILL M. ACKLIN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Acklin Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Westfield, Indiana
KARL M. SCHARNBERG
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
THOMAS SCHULTHEIS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 60A04-1311-CR-582
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE OWEN CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Lori Thatcher Quillen, Judge
Cause No. 60C01-1207-FD-459
June 26, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Thomas Schultheis appeals his conviction for intimidation of a law enforcement
officer, a Class D felony. We affirm.
Issue
The sole issue before us is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain
Schultheis’s conviction.
Facts
During the evening of July 27, 2012, Schultheis visited Cataract Falls State Park in
Owen County with his girlfriend and took pictures of her with the Falls as a backdrop.
Conservation Officer Patrick Labhart of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(“DNR”) saw the couple and yelled at them to come down from the Falls. Officer Labhart
informed the couple that they were prohibited from being in the creek and of the dangers
associated with climbing the cliffs. Schultheis assured Officer Labhart numerous times
that they were not doing anything wrong. Officer Labhart decided to issue a citation for
violating DNR rules and requested Schultheis’s identification card. Schultheis responded,
“if you want to take this any further, go ahead and write me a ticket before I throw you off
the f****** cliff.” Tr. p. 284.
The State charged Schultheis with Class D felony intimidation of a law enforcement
officer and Class C infraction violation of an administrative rule adopted by the DNR.1 The
charging information read in part: “on or about July 27, 2012 at Cataract Falls in Owen
1
The Class C infraction is not at issue in this appeal, as Schultheis only challenges his conviction for the
Class D felony.
2
County, State of Indiana, Thomas E. Schultheis did communicate a threat to Patrick
Labhart, a law enforcement officer, with the intent that Patrick Labhart be placed in fear of
retaliation for a prior lawful act, to-wit: enforcing the State law . . . .” App. p. 13. After a
jury trial, Schultheis was convicted as charged. Schultheis now appeals.
Analysis
Schultheis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the probative evidence
and reasonable inferences therefrom supporting a guilty verdict or finding. Lock v. State,
971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)).
We will neither assess witness credibility, nor reweigh the evidence to determine if it was
sufficient to support a conviction. Id. Those roles are reserved exclusively for the finder
of fact, not appellate courts. Id. We must consider only the evidence most favorable to the
conviction and will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270
(Ind. 2000)).
To convict Schultheis of Class D felony intimidation, the State was required to
prove that Schultheis: (1) communicated a threat (2) to Officer Labhart (3) with the intent
that he be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-
1(a)(2), -(b)(1)(B)(i). Schultheis argues that the State did not allege or prove that a lawful
act occurred prior to his threat to Officer Labhart. It is true that Officer Labhart did not
communicate his intention to issue Schultheis a citation prior to the threat. Officer Labhart
only requested identification from Schultheis. However, there is direct evidence in the
3
record of Schultheis reacting defensively to Officer Labhart and insulting him three times
while Officer Labhart attempted to enforce State laws. The sequence of events shows that
Officer Labhart manifested an intent to issue a citation as he requested identification and
made multiple attempts to explain to Schultheis that he was in violation of DNR
administrative rules. Schultheis then responded, “if you want to take this any further, go
ahead and write me a ticket before I throw you off the f****** cliff.” Tr. p. 284. Therefore,
there is sufficient evidence that Officer Labhart’s lawful act of enforcing State law and
starting to issue a citation occurred prior to Schultheis’s threat.
In support of his argument, Schultheis relies upon Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069
(Ind. Ct. App. 1997). In Casey, we reversed an intimidation conviction after concluding
that the record did not support the State’s contention that the defendant threatened the
victim to place her in fear of retaliation for a specific prior lawful act. Id. at 1073. Our
decision relied upon the fact that the charging information failed to specify which prior
lawful act led to the retaliatory threats. Id. Additionally, the threatening language did not
demonstrate the appellant’s reason for threatening the victim or indicate that the appellant
was doing so because of any specific prior act by the victim. Id. Here, by contrast, the
charging information specifies a prior lawful act, enforcing State law, and the record
indicates that Schultheis’s statement “go ahead and write me a ticket before I throw you
off the f****** cliff” indicates that he was aware of the nature of his conduct and aware
that he was receiving a citation. App. p. 13; Tr. p. 284. Therefore, a reasonable fact-finder
could have reached the conclusion that the threat was in retaliation of Officer Labhart
4
enforcing the State law and issuing a citation. As a result, we affirm Schultheis’s
conviction.
Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence to sustain Schultheis's class D felony conviction for
intimidation of a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
5