BRONSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Calvin Bronson appeals his conviction of Level 5 felony intimidation.¹ He argues the State did not present sufficient evidence that he committed that crime. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 24, 2023, L.T. picked up Bronson in Chicago and brought him back to her residence in Gary. On December 26, 2023, around 8:00 p.m., L.T. told Bronson she was ready to take him back to Chicago. Bronson gathered his belongings but became agitated, stating he believed L.T. thought he was stupid and was asking him to leave because she wanted to “go be” with someone else. (Tr. Vol. II at 147.)

[3] L.T. went upstairs to gather her keys and purse and asked Bronson if he was ready to go. Bronson became more agitated and tussled with L.T. over her keys and purse. During the struggle, Bronson fell down the stairs. After he fell down the stairs, Bronson went to the kitchen and grabbed a knife. Bronson told L.T. he was going to “f*ck [her] up[.]” (Id. at 152.) Bronson pinned L.T. against a wall, but L.T. was able to break free by pushing Bronson to the ground.

[4] Bronson then went outside and became “really extremely loud to the point where neighbors start[ed] coming outside their homes.” (Id. at 157.) L.T. locked the door to her home and told Bronson to stay outside. However, Bronson broke into L.T.’s house through a window in the garage and kicked in the door between the garage and L.T.’s house. Before kicking in the door to L.T.’s house, Bronson picked up a hammer he found in L.T.’s garage. When Bronson entered L.T.’s house, he had “a rock in one hand and a hammer in another hand.” (Id. at 164.)

[5] Bronson and L.T. argued for forty minutes thereafter, during which Bronson put down the hammer. However, at the end of the argument, Bronson “picked up the hammer again and attempted to come towards [L.T.][.]” (Id. at 168.) He again told L.T. that “he was going to f*ck [her] up.” (Id.) L.T. went to her car and attempted to drive away, and Bronson came to her car and threatened to break her car windows. After she drove away, L.T. called 911. When she made that call, the dispatcher told her “they had so many calls so it may take them some time” to address her call. (Id. at 169.)

[6] L.T. eventually returned to her house to take her thyroid cancer medication. When she entered through the front door, Bronson was sitting on her couch with a hammer in his hand and told L.T. “b*tch, I'm gonna break your tables, I'm finna break your glass.” (Id. at 171) (errors in original). Bronson tried to break L.T.’s living room tables with the hammer, so L.T. struggled with Bronson until she could take the hammer away from him.

[7] Shortly thereafter, around 1:30 a.m. on December 27, 2023, L.T. told Bronson she was going to take him home. She did not tell him that she intended to take him to the Gary Police Department instead. On her way to the police station, L.T. received a call from the 911 dispatch indicating officers were on their way to her house. L.T. returned home, where officers arrested Bronson.

[8] Bronson waived his Miranda 2 rights and spoke with police. Bronson admitted to police that he broke a window in L.T.’s garage after she locked him out. He also told police that he had a hammer and threatened to break L.T.’s tables, but did not actually intend to do so.

[9] On December 27, 2023, the State charged Bronson with Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury,³ Level 4 felony burglary,⁴ Level 5 felony attempted robbery,⁵ Level 5 felony criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury,⁶ Level 5 felony intimidation while using a deadly weapon, Level 6 felony criminal confinement,⁷ Level 6 felony residential entry,⁸ and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.⁹ The trial court held a jury trial on August 19, 2024. The jury returned guilty verdicts for Level 5 felony attempted robbery, Level 5 felony intimidation with a deadly weapon, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. The trial court entered convictions accordingly. On October 3, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Bronson to an aggregate sentence of eight years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Bronson challenges only one of his convictions, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence he committed Level 5 felony intimidation while armed with a deadly weapon. When faced with challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we apply a “well settled” standard of review that leaves determination of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses to the fact-finder. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling and will affirm a defendant's conviction unless ‘no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).

[11] To prove Bronson committed Level 5 felony intimidation, the State had to present sufficient evidence that he communicated a threat with the intent to place another person in fear for a prior lawful act while using a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(b)(2). Specifically, the State alleged Bronson “while drawing or using a hammer, a deadly weapon, did communicate a threat to [L.T.] with the intent that [L.T.] be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, to-wit: returning to her home in her vehicle to take her cancer medication[.]” (App. Vol. II at 11.) Bronson admits he intimidated L.T. but contends the State did not present sufficient evidence that he drew or used a hammer while threatening L.T. after she returned to her home. Although Bronson admitted to having a hammer, he contends “he flatly denied ever pointing the hammer at [L.T.] or using it beyond mere possession” and that “[m]erely being armed with a deadly weapon does not enhance the crime of intimidation.” (Br. of Appellant at 7.) He asserts “[L.T.]’s testimony corroborates this, with her stating that Bronson was simply sitting on the couch with the hammer in his hand.” (Id.)

[12] “[T]he salient character of ‘drawing’ a weapon is a common-sense understanding of bringing it forth and preparing it for use.” Rhodes v. State, 144 N.E.3d 787, 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting United States v. Suggs, 624 F.3d 370, 374 (7th Cir. 2010)). In that case, we held Rhodes drew a weapon when he held an AR-15 “in his hand and propped it on his shoulder” while intimidating his victim. Id.

[13] Using a weapon “includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, and striking with[.]” Daniels v. State, 957 N.E.2d 1025, 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In Daniels, we held that Daniels's display of a gun tucked into his waistband to the victim was sufficient evidence he used the gun while intimidating his victim. Id.

[14] Here, Bronson held a hammer in his hand while sitting on the couch of L.T.’s home. While holding the hammer he told L.T. “b*tch, I'm gonna break your tables, I'm finna break your glass.” (Tr. Vol. II at 171) (errors in original). Bronson told police he threatened to break L.T.’s tables with the hammer. L.T. wrestled with Bronson in an attempt to take the hammer away because “[h]e was trying to break [her] table with the hammer.” (Id.) Because Bronson displayed the hammer to L.T. while sitting on the couch and prepared it for use by trying to break L.T.’s table with the hammer, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence he committed Level 5 felony intimidation with a deadly weapon. See, e.g., Rhodes, 144 N.E.3d at 790 (evidence was sufficient that Rhodes drew a weapon because Rhodes held an AR-15 and propped on his shoulder while intimidating his victim); and see Daniels, 957 N.E.2d at 1030 (evidence was sufficient that Daniels used a weapon because he lifted his shirt to show his victim he had a gun in his waistband).

Conclusion

[15] We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence Bronson committed Level 5 felony intimidation while using a deadly weapon. Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(b)(2).

2.   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a).

5.   Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a) (Level 5 felony robbery); Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a) (attempt).

6.   Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(1).

7.   Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a).

8.   Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5.

9.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a).

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.