Jamie M. Curtsinger 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 Sep 30 2014, 8:43 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ANDREW B. ARNETT GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
CHANDRA K. HEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMIE M. CURTSINGER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 21A04-1312-CR-645
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE FAYETTE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Ronald T. Urdal, Judge
Cause No. 21D01-1304-CM-301
September 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Jamie M. Curtsinger appeals her conviction for Intimidation, 1 a class A
misdemeanor, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. Finding
the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
FACTS
In November 2012, the Department of Child Services (DCS) got involved with
Curtsinger after she engaged in a physical altercation with her sixteen-year-old daughter,
S.C., causing S.C. to sustain bruising, swelling, and a concussion. The Family Case
Manager assigned to the case was Kathy Hobson. Eventually, S.C. and Curtsinger’s
other children were found to be children in need of services (CHINS) and were removed
from Curtsinger’s care and custody. During the CHINS proceedings, Curtsinger and her
family exhibited so much hostility toward Hobson and DCS that a state trooper needed to
stand in the courtroom to ensure everyone’s safety. On March 8, 2013, S.C. was
permanently removed from Curtsinger’s care.
On March 26, 2013, Hobson and her thirteen-year-old son encountered Curtsinger
and her daughter, N.C., at a Walmart. Curtsinger and her daughter began screaming
profanities at Hobson. Hobson filed a police report as a result of the incident.
On April 2, 2013, Curtsinger called DCS and left a voicemail message for Hobson.
The case had since been transferred to another Family Case Manager, Ann Maria
Lankford, and Curtsinger left the voicemail on Lankford’s phone. Lankford testified that
in the voicemail, Curtsinger threatened physical violence against Hobson, stated that she
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2).
2
was going to harm Hobson, and asked how high bond would be set if she were arrested
after physically assaulting Hobson. Curtsinger stated that it would take a significant
amount of law enforcement to protect Hobson from Curtsinger. Lankford conveyed the
message to Hobson, who filed a second police report.
On April 17, 2013, the State charged Curtsinger with class A misdemeanor
intimidation. Following a November 1, 2013, bench trial, the court found Curtsinger
guilty as charged. On December 17, 2013, the trial court sentenced Curtsinger to one
year, fully suspended to probation. Curtsinger now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Curtsinger argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction.
When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess witness credibility. McClellan v. State, 13 N.E.3d 546, 548 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014). Instead, we consider only the probative evidence supporting the conviction
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial evidence
of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could have drawn the conclusion
that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the verdict will not be
disturbed. Id. To convict Curtsinger of class A misdemeanor intimidation, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she communicated a threat to Hobson
with the intent that Hobson be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. I.C. §
35-45-2-1(a)(2).
3
The sole issue on appeal is whether Curtsinger’s voicemail constituted a threat.
Whether a statement is a “threat” under Indiana law depends “on two necessary elements:
that the speaker intend his communications to put his target in fear for their safety, and
that the communications were likely to actually cause such a fear in a reasonable person
similarly situated to the target.” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 964 (Ind. 2014).
The record reveals that Curtsinger left a voicemail for Hobson. Lankford testified
that in this voicemail, Curtsinger threatened to physically harm Hobson. Curtsinger
questioned how high bond would be set after she was arrested for assaulting Hobson.
She also stated that it would take a significant amount of law enforcement to protect
Hobson from Curtsinger. We find this evidence to be sufficient to establish that
Curtsinger intended to place Hobson in fear for her safety.
In addition to the actual statements on the voicemail, Curtsinger and Hobson had
been enmeshed in a CHINS proceeding that was so fraught with hostility from Curtsinger
that a police trooper’s presence was required in court. Moreover, the week before
Curtsinger left the voicemail, she and her daughter screamed profanities at Hobson and
her son while shopping, causing Hobson to file a police report. And Hobson was well
aware that Curtsinger was capable of physical assault, given the incident that led to the
CHINS case. Given the statements in the voicemail and the history between the parties,
we find that the evidence sufficiently established that the voicemail would actually cause
fear in a reasonable person similarly situated to Hobson. Curtsinger’s arguments to the
4
contrary amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence and assess witness credibility,
which we will not do. In sum, we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RILEY, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
5