ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ruth Ann Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Valerie K. Boots Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender Agency
Indianapolis, Indiana James B. Martin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
FILED
Jul 12 2016, 10:42 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
In the
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 49S02-1607-CR-372
VICTOR ROAR,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49F09-1404-FD-18644
The Honorable Barbara Cook Crawford, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1506-CR-506
_________________________________
July 12, 2016
Per Curiam.
Victor Roar was convicted of class A misdemeanor intimidation after the property manager
of his sister’s apartment left an eviction notice on his sister’s door, and Roar told the property
manager, “if [the property manager] came back on the property, he’d kill [her].”
Roar contended the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Specifically, he
argued that his statement was conditional, and not a threat to retaliate for a prior lawful act, because
the statement concerned future, rather than past, conduct (namely, the manager coming “back on
the property” in the future). Rejecting its prior precedent in C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. See Roar v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2016
WL 1593880, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. April 21, 2016). The majority concluded that the State had
presented sufficient evidence that Roar’s threat was made “with the intent . . . that [the manager]
be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act” as required by the intimidation statute, Indiana
Code section 35-45-2-1(a). Id. at *2.
We agree with Judge Najam’s analysis and the result reached by the Court of Appeals
majority in the present appeal. We therefore grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference
that portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion addressing the sufficiency of the evidence in
accordance with Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1), and affirm the trial court. We summarily affirm
that part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion addressing the admission of other evidence. See App.
R. 58(A)(2).
All Justices concur.
2