ILNews

Miscarriage an 'act' in intimidation charge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today a man's conviction of and sentence for intimidation after he threatened his wife, who recently miscarried. The appellate court ruled the miscarriage fulfilled the "act" part of the charge as contemplated by Indiana statute.

Manuel Clara appealed his conviction and sentence in Manual Clara v. State of Indiana, No. 19A04-0806-CR-345, in which the trial court denied his motion for judgment on the evidence or directed verdict.

Clara blamed his wife, Tosha, for her miscarriage a few weeks earlier and threatened to kill her and their 2-year-old son. He grabbed a knife from the kitchen and even screwed one of their home's doors shut so Tosha couldn't leave. She eventually escaped with their son and called police.

The intimidation charge against Clara provided that he threatened Tosha with the intent she "be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, to wit: because [Tosha] had miscarried their child." Clara moved for a directed verdict, arguing miscarriage isn't an "act" as considered by the statute defining intimidation, so the state failed to establish the elements of the offense. The trial court denied the motion and he was found guilty; Clara was sentenced to the advisory sentence of four years on his intimidation conviction.

In his appeal, Clara argued that an "act" under the statute must be volitional, so the miscarriage couldn't count.

Using the dictionary definition of "act" as "the thing done," the act can be intentional, unintentional, volitional, or non-volitional, wrote Senior Judge John Sharpnack. Here, the state alleged and proved Tosha's miscarriage was "the thing done" and further showed Clara's threat to commit a forcible felony was based upon the miscarriage. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed Clara's advisory four-year sentence as appropriate because Clara intimidated Tosha for more than two hours and threatened to kill his son as a result of his wife's miscarriage.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT