Timothy Ray Ruggles, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Timothy Ray Ruggles appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony intimidation. Ruggles acknowledges that he engaged in bizarre behavior while wielding a sword outside of a Dollar General store, but he claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he communicated a threat to another person.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On June 21, 2025, Dawn Ramos was working at the Dollar General in Warsaw as the assistant manager. She refused entry to Ruggles and locked the doors when he approached the entrance with a large sword. Ruggles became angry and repeatedly claimed that he was hot, so Ramos had a male employee toss a water bottle outside for Ruggles and then relock the door. Ruggles then “just started going crazy” swinging the sword and telling Ramos it was legal for him to carry it. Transcript at 40. Ramos responded that she had a right to refuse to let him in with the sword. While hitting the side of the building near the front door with his sword, Ruggles told Ramos, “may God have mercy on your soul when [I'm] done with [you],” and he warned that “the best thing for [her] to do was to call 911.” Id. at 41. His actions “[t]errified” Ramos, and she feared for her life. Id. at 42. Ramos was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher when Ruggles advised again that “the only thing that was going to save [her]” was calling 911. Id. at 44-45.

[4] Thereafter, Ruggles wandered around the parking lot waving his sword as customers arrived. Ramos yelled to the customers to stay in their cars. Ruggles eventually moved to the parking lot of a nearby business and was there when police arrived. After his arrest, methamphetamine was found inside Ruggles's backpack.

[5] The State charged Ruggles with intimidation and possession of methamphetamine, both as Level 5 felonies. At a bench trial on August 28, 2025, the trial court found Ruggles guilty of Level 5 felony intimidation with a deadly weapon and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine as a lesser-included offense. On September 23, 2025, the court sentenced Ruggles to concurrent sentences of six years for intimidation and two and one-half years for possession of methamphetamine.

[6] Ruggles now appeals, challenging on sufficiency grounds only his conviction for intimidation. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022). “When there are conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] must resolve them.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). Thus, on appeal, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will affirm “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fix, 186 N.E.3d at 1138 (quoting Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).

Sorgdrager v. State, 208 N.E.3d 646, 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. In sum, the evidence does not need to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from the evidence to support the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).

Discussion & Decision

[8] As relevant here, a person is guilty of intimidation as a Class A misdemeanor if he communicates a threat, by words or actions, to another person (the victim) to unlawfully injure the victim or another person and the threat is made with the intent that the victim be placed in fear that the threat will be carried out. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(4) and (c)(1). The offense is elevated to a Level 5 felony if while committing it the defendant “draws or uses a deadly weapon.” I.C. § 35-45-2-1(b)(1)(A).

[9] On appeal, Ruggles argues that the State failed to prove that he communicated a threat to Ramos to unlawfully injure her or another person. As Ruggles correctly observes, the “mere display” of a weapon does not express an intention to unlawfully injure a person. Johnson v. State, 743 N.E.2d 755, 756 (Ind. 2001) (agreeing with this general proposition from Gaddis v. State, 680 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. App. 1997)). Ruggles claims that he was “merely carrying a large sword” – not pointing it at anyone or making gestures indicative that he was going to use it against anyone – and that the words he communicated to Ramos were “bizarre” and “difficult to make sense of” but not threatening. Appellant's Brief at 9.

[10] We reject Ruggles's invitation to reweigh the evidence. The facts favorable to the judgment reveal that Ruggles became angry and violent when denied entry into the Dollar General. He argued with Ramos through the locked door, swinging his sword and telling her that he had a right to carry it. Unable to persuade Ramos to let him in, Ruggles struck the building with his sword and said, “may God have mercy on your soul when [I'm] done with [you].” Transcript at 41. Ruggles also told Ramos that the best thing for her to do to save herself was to call 911, which she did because she was terrified and feared for her life.

[11] On these facts, a reasonable fact finder could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Ruggles went well beyond simply displaying a sword and that through his combined words and actions he communicated a threat to Ramos to unlawfully injure her. Cf. Johnson, 743 N.E.2d at 757 (finding sufficient evidence of communication of a threat where defendant, after making obscene remarks to victim, lifted his jacket to reveal a handgun while telling victim, who began exiting his car, “don't even think about it”).

[12] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Judge.

Brown, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.