Crone, J.
Duane Herron appeals his conviction for level 6 felony attempted obstruction of justice, following a jury trial. … We restate the dispositive issue as whether the trial court erred in denying Herron’s motion for directed verdict on that basis. …
… Jennifer Goble, the woman Herron was dating and living with at the time, was the alleged victim of Herron’s crimes and was “listed as the State’s witness on the charges filed with the Court. … Accordingly, the trial court issued a no-contact order preventing Herron from contacting Goble “in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or any other way, directly or indirectly….” …
… Herron contacted Goble by telephone from the St. Joseph County Jail. … Two days later, Herron again telephoned Goble and told her “all you gotta do is not show up for trial” because “if they don’t have no witness or no victim, then there’s nothing they can charge me with … they don’t have no choice but to dismiss the charges.”
….
… A jury trial was held on December 10, 2015. Following the State’s presentation of evidence, the defense moved for a directed verdict on the attempted obstruction of justice charge. … The trial court denied the motion. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Herron guilty on all counts. Herron now appeals his attempted obstruction of justice conviction.
Herron argues that the State was unable to present sufficient evidence to establish that he committed attempted obstruction of justice as charged because the State charged him under the wrong part of the obstruction of justice statute. …
….
Here, the State charged Herron with attempted obstruction of justice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-2-2(a)(2)(C). …
We find the statutory language at issue here, when read as a whole and in context, to be unambiguous. Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-2-2(a)(1)(C) provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally induces, by threat, coercion, or other listed means, “a witness or informant in an official proceeding or investigation to … absent the person from a proceeding or investigation to which the person has been legally summoned” commits obstruction of justice. (Emphasis added.) Subpart (a)(2)(C) makes no similar reference to a witness or informant, but provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally in an official criminal proceeding or investigation “absents the person from a proceeding or investigation to which the person has been legally summoned” commits the same crime. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-2(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added). The phrase “the person” as used in subpart (a)(1)(C) clearly refers to absenting a witness or informant from a proceeding or investigation to which the witness or informant has been legally summoned, while the same phrase used in subpart (a)(2)(C) clearly refers to a person absenting himself or herself from a proceeding or investigation to which he or she has been legally summoned.
….
Accordingly, we agree with Herron that “the person” as used in Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-2-2(a)(2)(C) refers only to a person absenting himself or herself from a proceeding or investigation to which the person has been legally summoned. Because the State chose to charge Herron pursuant to subpart (a)(2)(C), and because there is no evidence that Herron attempted to absent himself from his criminal proceeding, the record is devoid of evidence on one or more elements of the charged offense. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying Herron’s motion for a directed verdict. His conviction for attempted obstruction of justice is reversed.
Reversed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.