Baker, J.
. . . Landis told Officer Heflin that he was walking along the road because he had just escaped from his residence where his seventeen-year-old grandson, C.L., had been holding him hostage for the past several days. Officer Heflin observed that Landis was “shaking and very nervous and afraid.” . . . .
Landis explained that he was hoping to obtain a $5000 home loan to repair some damage to the water lines in his house. Landis told C.L. about the project, but C.L. wanted a new car that cost about $1700. Although C.L. demanded $3500 of the home loan funds, Landis told C.L. that he did not have the money to give him to purchase the vehicle. Landis then said, “look . . . if you don’t quit doing this, trying to make me do something I don’t want to do . . . I’m just going to leave.” Id. C.L. responded, “no you ain’t leaving. You ain’t walking. I’ll drag you back up here.” Id.
Landis was frightened of C.L. because of his size and strength. Landis stated that he could no longer handle C.L., that he was “big enough [to] do damage,” and that C.L. had been “locked up for three years.” Tr. p. 12-13. At some point, C.L. became “huffy and puffy,” and told Landis that he would “beat the heck out of” Landis if C.L. “didn’t get the money” for the car. Id. at 23. C.L. also told Landis that if he “ever got sent to jail and . . . [got] out, [that he would] kill him.” Id. C.L. also stated that he would kill others, including his mother and brother.
Although Landis wanted to leave the residence, C.L. did not allow him to do so. Landis attempted to leave the house at least twice over the course of four nights before he was finally able to escape. At some point, Landis managed to leave through the back door while C.L. was sleeping, walked about one-half mile, and called 911.
. . . .
At the factfinding hearing that commenced on May 22, 2013, Landis testified on cross examination that the statements C.L. directed at him were always prefaced with “if,” such as “if he didn’t get the money” or “if he got caught.” Tr. p. 23-24 (emphasis added). Landis further testified that he had not yet obtained the loan and had not yet called the police when he alleged that C.L. had made the statements to him.
. . . .
The charging information regarding the intimidation counts alleged that C.L. communicated a threat to Landis with the intent to place Landis in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, contrary to Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1. To prove intimidation, the State must establish that the legal act occurred prior to the threat and that the defendant intended to place the victim in fear of retaliation for that act. . . . .
. . . .
. . . [I]t is apparent that each of C.L.’s statements or threats directed against Landis were conditional and targeted at future conduct. C.L. indicated that “[i]f I ever get sent to jail; if I get caught; if I don’t get the money,” there would be consequences. Tr. p. 23-24. Similarly, when C.L. stated that he “will drag [Landis] back up” to the house if Landis tried to leave, that threat was also directed at a future act. Tr. p. 12 (emphasis added).
In sum, while C.L.’s threats against his grandfather are condemnable and reprehensible, the statements were not directed at an identifiable prior act. Rather, they each point to a specific future act. And Landis agreed on cross-examination that C.L.’s offending statements were aimed at speculative conduct that had not yet occurred. . . . .
In conclusion, because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that C.L. communicated a threat to Landis with the intent that he be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act in accordance with the intimidation statute, the juvenile court’s delinquency finding must be reversed.
CRONE, J., concurs, and NAJAM, J., dissents with an opinion:
The evidence shows that C.L.’s threats were in direct response to Landis’s prior decision to use the loan proceeds only to repair his residence and not to give C.L. a portion of those proceeds. See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(2). That is, Landis had already decided not to give C.L. any money from the loan proceeds, whether or not Landis had himself already received those proceeds, and Landis had conveyed that decision to C.L. A reasonable inference from the evidence demonstrates that C.L.’s threats were intended to place Landis in fear of retaliation for his prior lawful act of having decided not to surrender a portion of his home loan proceeds to C.L. See, e.g., Leggs v. State, 966 N.E.2d 204, 206, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). As such, I would affirm the juvenile court’s adjudication of C.L. as a delinquent.