Edward F. Pourner, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After being convicted of Class A misdemeanor intimidation, Edward Pourner contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to prove that he had made a threat to Cory Sims with the intent that Sims engage in conduct against his will. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, Sims began a relationship with Heather Wade. Sims's relationship with Wade was a “point of friction” between Sims and Pourner, who had previously been in a relationship with Wade. Tr. Vol. II p. 109. During Sims's relationship with Wade, Pourner contacted Sims on Facebook Messenger and “bluntly threatened to kick [Sims's] a[**] over and over and over.” Tr. Vol. II p. 109. Sims did not respond to Pourner at the time.

[3] Sims eventually invited Pourner to his house “to discuss his frustrations. [Sims] thought [they had] left on good terms[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 110. Pourner “wanted [Sims] to tell [Wade], to get back with him[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 110. After his conversation with Pourner, Sims “thought it was okay,” and “[i]t didn't seem hostile at that moment.” Tr. Vol. II p. 110.

[4] At some point, Pourner again began sending Sims messages about “fighting him.” Tr. Vol. II p. 110. Sims “couldn't count” how many messages Pourner had sent, but he never agreed to “fight” Pourner because, “I'm an adult. I have a child. I'm not going to lose my kid. I'm not going to be stupid.” Tr. Vol. II p. 111.

[5] On December 10, 2023, Pourner sent more “hostile, threatening” messages to Sims, including, “Step up or shut up”, “I'll see you in a few minutes”, “I got you address”, “I will see you tonight b[****]” and “I'm on my way run like a b[****] you are.” Ex. Vol. pp. 3–6. Sims “didn't want to escalate anything” so he did not respond. Tr. Vol. II p. 114. Pourner also posted a video on his Facebook page, in which he said, “Cory Sims, this is your last and final f[***]ing chance. I will be at the VFW” and “You can show up, or I will show up at your house and beat your ever-loving f[***]ing a[**]. This is your f[***]ing final f[***]ing chance. Bye.” Ex. 5 at 0:05–0:39.

[6] On December 14, 2023, the State charged Pourner with Class A misdemeanor intimidation. At the jury trial on May 21, 2025, Sims testified that the video had made him concerned for his safety because Pourner is a “vet[eran], same as I am. We both know how to fight war.” Tr. Vol. II p. 116. The jury found Pourner guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced Pourner to 365 days in jail with 180 executed and the remainder suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Pourner contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had committed Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It 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. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (brackets, citations, emphasis, and quotations omitted). In other words, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility” and “affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

[8] To prove that Pourner had committed Class A misdemeanor intimidation, the State was required to prove that he had “communicate[d] a threat with the intent” that Sims “engage in conduct against [his] will[.]” Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1). A threat is defined in relevant part as “an expression, by words or action, of an intention to: (1) unlawfully injure the person threatened[,]” or “commit a crime.” Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(c).

[9] Pourner contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had intended Sims to engage in conduct against his will.¹ Specifically, he contends that, “[w]hen analyzed together with the Facebook messages, a reasonable person cannot conclude that the video's threatened battery had a conditional nature. Rather, Pourner [․] declared that the battery would happen regardless of location.” Appellant's Br. p. 10.

[10] “Whether a statement constitutes a threat is an objective question for the trier of fact to determine.” Gates v. State, 192 N.E.3d 222, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Sims testified that he did not want to engage in violence with Pourner and that he had ignored Pourner's messages to avoid escalating the situation. Pourner's threat that Sims either “show up” to the VFW or Pourner would “show up at [Sims's] house and beat [his] ever-loving f[***]ing a[**],” Ex. 5 at 0:05–0:39, could have reasonably been interpreted by the jury to mean that if Sims did not go to the VFW to fight with Pourner, which Sims did not want to do, then Pourner would go to Sims's house and batter him there.

[11] Based on the foregoing, we agree with the State that the evidence was sufficient to show that Pourner communicated his threat to Sims with the intent that Sims engage in conduct against his will. Pourner's argument to the contrary amounts to nothing more than a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 958.

[12] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent that Pourner contends that his case is similar to McCaskill v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), we disagree. In McCaskill, McCaskill had contacted the victim on Facebook “telling her that she was going to ‘beat her a[**]’ and that ‘everybody in the city knew she would beat her a[**].’ ” Id. at 1048 (brackets in original omitted). We reversed McCaskill's conviction because, although the State argued that McCaskill's reasoning for the threats “must have been for [the victim] to leave [her husband,]” the events leading up to the threats and McCaskill's reasons were not a part of the record, and the conclusion was “pure speculation.” Id. at 1050. This case is distinguishable, as Pourner's messages contained a conditional threat, i.e., either Sims “show up” at the VFW or Pourner would “show up” at Sims's house. Ex. 5 at 0:05–0:39.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.