Barteau, Senior J.
A juvenile court determined E.B. is a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted two counts of intimidation, both Level 6 felonies. …
….
E.B. attended high school in Lawrence County. In January 2017, Assistant Principal Todd Tanksley disciplined E.B. for misconduct in the school cafeteria. Tanksley called E.B.’s father to make him aware of the situation.
In mid-February 2017, E.B. sent a text message to a fellow student, J.G. E.B. advised J.G. to wear red on the following Tuesday, explaining that he intended to shoot “anybody who wasn’t wearing red.” E.B. later sent a text message to J.B., another fellow student. E.B. told J.B. that next Tuesday, he should “wear red and get under the desk” when he heard music. E.B. further told J.B. to tell “the ones that [he] care[s] about.” J.B. shared E.B.’s instructions with several of his fellow students via text messages.
Later that same evening, E.B.’s sister, Em.B., was walking by E.B.’s room when she heard him talking on the phone with an unknown person. E.B. said he was going to bring a gun to school and shoot Tanksley because “he didn’t like him.”
….
One of the students J.B. spoke with went to Tanksley’s office later that morning, at 8:30 a.m., and told him what J.B. had said. … Next, Tanksley spoke with Em.B., who was also a student at the school. She informed Tanksley of E.B.’s statement that E.B. intended to bring a gun to school and shoot him. E.B. was not at school that day.
Tanksley called the police, and two detectives were dispatched to the school. Tanksley contacted E.B.’s father and asked him to come to the school. … The detectives asked E.B.’s father for permission to search E.B.’s bedroom, and he signed a written form granting consent to search.
The detectives followed E.B.’s father to his house and searched E.B.’s bedroom … The detectives found a handwritten document entitled “Checklist for Project . . . School Shooting.” The document listed items he intended to take with him to school, including a rifle, a handgun, and a knife, as well as ammunition, a holster, and a radio.
E.B. further listed “areas of completion or major targets,” including “Tanksly [sic],” the cafeteria, and “anyone I can.” Finally, the document listed people not to be shot, including “anyone the [sic] wears red” and J.G. The officers also found the following items in E.B.’s bedroom: several shotgun shells and bullets, a holster, and a tactical vest.
….
On February 21, 2017, the State filed a Verified Petition Alleging Delinquency …, in which the State contended as “Specification One” that E.B. committed an act that would have been intimidation, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, for his actions involving Tanksley. The State later amended its petition to add “Specification Two,” alleging E.B. committed an act that constituted a second act of intimidation, also a Level 6 felony, for interfering with the occupancy of the school. The juvenile court held a factfinding hearing and determined E.B. had committed both acts of delinquency as alleged by the State and was a delinquent child. …
….
It is well-established that a defendant need not speak directly with a victim to communicate a threat for purposes of Indiana Code section 35-45-2-1. …
….
Nevertheless, it remains true that to communicate a threat for purposes of the offense of intimidation, the statement must be transmitted in such a way that the defendant knows or has good reason to know the statement will reach the victim. Ajabu, 677 N.E.2d at 1043. …
….
In the current case, Em.B. was passing by E.B.’s room when she overheard him talking with someone on the telephone. She heard him say that he was going to bring a gun to school and shoot Tanksley because he did not like him. We do not know who E.B. was talking with or what else was said during the conversation. E.B. did not tell anyone else about shooting Tanksley. Em.B. told Tanksley about E.B.’s statement, but E.B. did not direct her to do that. There is no evidence that E.B. made his statement with knowledge or reason to believe that his statement would reach Tanksley. …
There is no dispute that E.B.’s statement was disturbing, and Tanksley had every right to be concerned. Regardless, E.B.’s conduct does not meet the statutory definition of intimidation due to lack of evidence regarding whether he communicated a threat, and we must reverse that portion of the juvenile court’s adjudication.
We reach a different conclusion with respect to the second allegation of intimidation. …
A reasonable person could extrapolate from J.B.’s communications that E.B. was threatening to engage in an act of violence, and the wearing of a red shirt would be a signal that the person should be spared. Furthermore, having told J.B. to share the instructions with anyone he cared about, without limitation, it should have been foreseeable to E.B. that news of E.B.’s plan would spread throughout the school. …
In addition, the officers found a plan of attack and some of the items listed on the plan in E.B.’s bedroom … This is sufficient evidence from which the finder of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that E.B. intended to commit intimidation through interfering with the occupancy of his high school.
We reverse the juvenile court’s determination that E.B. was a delinquent child for committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted intimidation of Tanksley. We affirm the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication as to the second act of intimidation, interfering with the occupancy of a school.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.