BARNES, J.
As charged, the State was required to prove that Nicholson stalked another person and made an implicit threat with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear of sexual battery. See Ind. Code § 35-45-10-5(b)(1)(B)(i). “’[S]talk’ means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.” I.C. § 35-45-10-1. “Harassment” is defined as, “conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.” I.C. § 35-45-10-2. 5
Nicholson argues that the single call on November 1, 2008 does not meet the statutory requirements of stalking, which requires “repeated or continuing” harassment. The State argues, “the circumstances of the 2006 events between Defendant and Patricia are relevant to the present offense because they prove the element of Defendant’s repeated and continued course of conduct.” . . . The State also points out that Nicholson might have been incarcerated in 2007, to explain why there were no calls to Patricia during that time.
The charging information references only the November 1, 2008 conduct, and it is clear that Nicholson made only one phone call to Patricia that night. Simply put, a single phone call is not “repeated or continuing harassment” as required by the stalking statute. This evidence alone is insufficient to support the stalking conviction.
For argument’s sake, we assume the 2006 conduct was properly admitted into evidence and available for consideration as substantive evidence of stalking. [Footnote omitted.] See Landis v. State, 704 N.E.2d 113, 113 (Ind. 1998) (“We conclude that the State may present evidence of prior acts that are probative of the crime of stalking (to the extent consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and any other applicable law) but that evidence of any former convictions should be admitted only in the ‘sentencing hearing’ . . . .”); Johnson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that evidence of other stalking allegations of which Johnson was acquitted could not be considered “to establish the repeated or continuing nature of Johnson’s actions, but it does bear on other elements of the second stalking charge, such as Johnson’s intent and the victim’s fear and emotional distress.”), trans. denied. Even when considering the 2006 conduct, we are not convinced that it and the single phone call on November 1, 2008 is “repeated or continuing harassment.”
There is little guidance as to what constitutes “repeated or continuing” for purposes of either the stalking or harassment statutes and the parties direct us to no such authority in their briefs. During oral argument, however, the State referenced Johnson. In that case, Johnson, on three different occasions during the same night, banged on the victim’s window and door, requested to be let in, and berated the victim. Johnson, 721 N.E.2d at 333. We addressed Johnson’s argument that, where the harassment occurs over a period of only several hours, the behavior cannot constitute “repeated or continuing” contact as a matter of law. Id. at 331.
In interpreting the stalking statute, we considered the dictionary definition of “repeat” and an Alabama appellate court’s definition of “repeatedly” to conclude, “that the term ‘repeated’ in Indiana’s anti-stalking law means ‘more than once.’” Id. at 332-33. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Johnson’s conviction, we explained:
Because this behavior occurred more than once, it was repeated. It makes no difference that the behavior occurred over a short period of time. If the legislature had wanted to place parameters on the period of time over which such behavior could occur, it could have done so. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-229 (Michie 1997) (course of conduct defined as “a pattern of conduct composed of two (2) or more acts separated by at least thirty-six (36) hours, but occurring within one (1) year”).
Id. at 333. We concluded that the three instances constituted “a course of conduct involving repeated harassment of the victim.” Id.
To the extent Johnson holds that there are no parameters on the period of time during which the conduct must occur to be “repeated or continuing,” we disagree. Although it is true that our Legislature could have put definitive time limitations in the statute and did not, we believe that the timeframe in which the conduct occurred is inherent in the inquiry whether harassment was “repeated or continuing.”
It is not entirely clear when exactly the 2006 conduct stopped or whether it stopped because Nicholson’s incarceration took him out of circulation; however, it is undisputed that he had no contact with Patricia from January 2007 until November 2008. Because Nicholson had no contact with Patricia for at least the twenty-two months before he made the single phone call to the Wolfe household on November 1, 2008, we cannot fit his conduct into any reasonable definition of “repeated or continuing harassment” as a matter of law. Of the 380 calls Nicholson made that night, only one, which the Wolfes returned, was to the Wolfes. Although this conduct was vile, as defense counsel observed during closing arguments, “Mr. Nicholson wasn’t stalking anybody. He was, frankly, harassing everybody else.” Tr. p. 388. In our opinion, Nicholson’s conduct in this instance does not fall into the stalking ambit. The evidence is insufficient to support the stalking conviction.
CRONE, J., concurs.
BRADFORD, J., dissents with opinion:
I do not share the majority’s conclusion that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain Nicholson’s stalking conviction and respectfully dissent. I am in agreement with the panel of this court which stated that “[i]f the legislature had wanted to place parameters on the period of time over which such behavior could occur, it could have done so.” Johnson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Nicholson repeated essentially the same type of conduct aimed at the same victim. The gap of time between the repeated conduct, occasioned primarily by Nicholson’s incarceration for the first offense against the victim, is a non-factor under the wording of the Indiana stalking statute. [Footnote omitted.]