Tavitas, J.
B.B., a minor, appeals his adjudication as a delinquent for an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult, a Level 6 felony. We affirm.
B.B. raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether there was sufficient evidence to adjudicate B.B. as a delinquent for an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult, a Level 6 felony.
B.B. spent a significant amount of time with his friend R.A., who was a tenth grader at Rochester High School (the “high school”) in 2018. The pair had been close friends for a long time, and R.A. was practically a member of B.B.’s family. In 2018, B.B. communicated with R.A.—in person, on the phone, and over Snapchat—about B.B.’s desire to shoot students at the high school. B.B. did not attend the high school; he was homeschooled.
Initially, R.A. believed B.B. was joking about the shooting; however, in March 2018, R.A. began taking the statements seriously after B.B. made repeated statements about his plan to shoot students, B.B.’s tone became more serious, and B.B. had access to an assault rifle in his house. R.A. knew this assault rifle was in B.B.’s home because B.B. and R.A. previously shot the assault rifle in B.B.’s yard. Additionally, one weekend, B.B. sent R.A. a picture of the assault rifle and said: “[d]on’t come to school tomorrow.” Tr. Vol. II p. 44. One day at B.B.’s house, B.B. showed R.A. a section of notes on B.B.’s phone that B.B. described as a “manifesto,” which described B.B.’s plan to shoot students at the high school. Id. R.A. never read the “manifesto” and never kept any of the messages B.B. sent to him over Snapchat or to R.A.’s phone.
…
Out of fear that B.B. may actually go through with the attack, R.A. told other students at the high school about B.B.’s threats; however, he did not notify school administrators or the police. Subsequently, the high school administrators became aware of the threats and contacted local law enforcement. Beginning April 20, 2018, the high school rerouted the school bus stops to prevent the bus from passing B.B.’s residence, limited the high school entrance to one entry point, and implemented additional security as a result of B.B.’s threats. Many students did not attend the high school for several days.
…
On April 20, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that B.B. was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult, a Level 6 felony.
…
On June 17, 2019, the trial court entered an order adjudicating B.B. a delinquent for committing an act that would be intimidation if committed by an adult, a Level 6 felony. On July 22, 2019, the juvenile court proceeded to disposition and ordered B.B. to serve sixty days, suspended, in secure detention at Kinsey Youth Center. B.B. was placed on probation until January 12, 2020.
B.B.’s specific argument is that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.B. knew or reasonably should have known his plans to shoot students at the high school would be communicated to the potential victims. B.B.’s argument is essentially that B.B. did not intend his message to be repeated to anyone except R.A., and because there is no evidence or indication that B.B. sought to shoot R.A., B.B. did not threaten victims as B.B. claims the statute requires.
…
B.B.’s communication to R.A. evidenced B.B.’s threat to interfere with the occupancy of the school pursuant to Subsection 3 [Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(3)(B)(i)]. 5 B.B. argues that R.A. was not an intended victim, and accordingly, no threat was communicated. At a minimum, B.B.’s intent was that R.A. would not attend school to avoid the shooting, and thus, B.B. intended to interfere with the occupancy of the school. R.A. ultimately shared B.B.’s threats, which resulted in significant absences from school.
Regardless, the State argues, and we agree, that B.B. should have known or had good reason to know that his threats to shoot the students at the high school would be communicated to others and the high school administration. B.B. was not discreet in his plans to kill persons at the high school, evidenced by: B.B.’s repeated statements to R.A., B.B.’s snapchats to R.A. regarding the same, and B.B. showing the manifesto to R.A. Unless R.A. was a coconspirator in the attack, and no such argument has been made, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that B.B. knew or should have known that R.A. would report a plan of mass murder to other students at the high school. R.A. behaved in a predictable way when he exposed B.B.’s plans.
The State presented sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude B.B. committed intimidation to interfere with the occupancy of the high school.
Conclusion
The evidence was sufficient to adjudicate B.B. a delinquent child for an act that would be considered intimidation if committed by an adult, a Level 6 felony.
Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Vaidik, J. concur