CARTWRIGHT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Rashawn Cartwright threatened to kill T.G., his child's grandmother (“Grandmother”), after she refused to speak with him. Cartwright was charged with and convicted of intimidation. Cartwright now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Cartwright's conviction for intimidation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the early evening hours of June 21, 2024, Grandmother was at her residence in Evansville, Indiana, when she heard “bang[ing] on [her] door,” Tr. Vol. II at 51. Not expecting anyone, Grandmother “look[ed] out the window” and saw Cartwright. Id. Grandmother exited her residence and opened the front door to speak with Cartwright; she did not open the screen door. Cartwright told Grandmother that he wanted to talk to her about his child, but she refused his request. Cartwright then asked Grandmother for a cigarette, and she refused this request, as well. Cartwright went towards Grandmother's back door and began “banging on every window,” repeatedly demanding Grandmother open the door. Id. Grandmother still refused to let Cartwright in. As Cartwright left, he told Grandmother, “B[*]tch I'm going to kill you.” Id. at 55. Grandmother called law enforcement once Cartwright was gone.

[4] The State charged Cartwright with intimidation as a Level 6 felony ¹ and alleged he was a habitual offender ² . The jury found Cartwright guilty of intimidation as a Level 6 felony and found he was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Cartwright to five years of incarceration. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Cartwright's Intimidation Conviction

[5] Cartwright argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction for intimidation as a Level 6 felony. Our Supreme Court has explained our standard of review for such a claim as follows:

Our standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency challenges is well established, as we have made clear that “[i]t is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783.

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025).

[6] In order to convict Cartwright of intimidation as a Level 6 felony under Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1(a)(2) and (b)(1)(A), the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cartwright communicated a threat to commit a forcible felony with the intent that Grandmother be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. Cartwright argues only that the State failed to identify the prior lawful act for which Cartwright was retaliating against Grandmother.

[7] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Cartwright threatened to kill Grandmother when she refused to open the door to her residence and refused to speak to him about his child. The State identified Grandmother's refusal to open the door and speak with Cartwright as the prior lawful act in its opening and closing arguments, and Grandmother testified to the same:

Q Did he say anything else to you that you can recall before he left?

A Yes, he did.

Q And what did he say?

A B[*]tch I'm going to kill you.

Q And what was the conversation like before he said that?

A He, he really wanted me to open that door and I never opened the door.

Tr. Vol. II at 55. We therefore cannot say the State failed to identify or prove the prior lawful act for which Cartwright retaliated against Grandmother, and we affirm Cartwright's conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2), (b)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-50-2-8.

Felix, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.