Robb, J.
Following a jury trial, Thaddaus Scott was convicted of battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman and obstruction of justice, both Level 5 felonies, and thirty counts of invasion of privacy, all Class A misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced Scott to an aggregate sentence of ten years and six months to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction, with two years suspended to probation. On appeal, Scott raises two issues for our review: 1) whether the admission of the victim’s prior statements to two law enforcement officers violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and 2) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his obstruction of justice conviction. Concluding that Scott forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to his own wrongdoing and the State presented sufficient evidence to support Scott’s conviction of obstruction of justice, we affirm.
I. Forfeiture of Right to Confront Witnesses
Scott first argues that the admission of Cook’s statements to Officer Short and Detective Ross violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
…
The issue is not the severity of Scott’s conduct; it is whether Scott engaged in conduct that was designed to procure Cook’s absence and whether that conduct was of such significance that she has been “kept back” from attending depositions or trial. As noted above, the evidence shows that Scott’s ongoing harassment of Cook through the litany of phone calls was a campaign designed to prevent Cook from testifying against him. Scott continually and repeatedly encouraging her not to attend depositions or trial precludes Scott from reaping the benefits of his own wrongdoing and to hold otherwise would undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
…
We conclude that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott’s conduct in repeatedly urging Cook to change her story and not attend depositions or trial was designed, at least in part, to keep her from testifying against him. Therefore, Scott’s wrongdoing forfeited his right to confront Cook’s statements to law enforcement and, as a result, his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of Cook’s prior statements at trial.
II. Sufficiency of Evidence
Scott argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his conviction for obstruction of justice.
To convict Scott of obstruction of justice under subsection (a) as charged, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott: (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) induced by coercion and/or false statement; (3) Cook, a witness in an official proceeding; (4) to withhold or unreasonably delay in producing any testimony or information. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-2(a). Scott only disputes that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he induced Cook to withhold her testimony by coercion or false statement. He argues that the number of calls from jail were not coercive, nor did he make any false statements.
Here, there is a clear indication that something would happen if Cook failed to comply with Scott’s requests: namely, that he would not get out of jail and she would still be working tirelessly caring for two children without his help. Scott implicitly assured Cook that he would help take care of their family when he got out of jail. In one phone call in August, Scott told Cook, “I know you want me home right there, baby. [It] [t]akes time, man, but . . . they got to go about procedures[.]” Exhibits, Vol. 1, Ex. 29B (Call 4) at 142. Cook responded, “Yeah, because I’m working long hours, babe. . . . I’m there because I . . . need to feed two.” Id. The language Scott used in the August phone call clearly articulated a consequence.
We acknowledge that the term “consequence” may be commonly associated with a negative outcome or an adverse result. But it is defined as “something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions.” Consequence, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/consequence (last visited January 29, 2020). Thus, a consequence is synonymous with a certain result or outcome and does not necessarily indicate a negative result. Our case law addressing coercion in the context of obstruction of justice requires only that the defendant indicate, explicitly or implicitly, a consequence – not a particular kind of consequence, such as a positive or negative one. Under these circumstances, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the pressure from repeated phone calls and the statement made by Scott in this context was coercive. Therefore, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the required base elements of obstruction of justice.
Because the State established the required base elements under subsection (a) of the obstruction of justice statute, we now turn our attention to subsection (b). To enhance Scott’s obstruction of justice conviction to a Level 5 felony under this subsection, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott: 1) during the investigation of a domestic violence case or while a domestic violence case was pending, 2) offered, gave, or promised a benefit to Cook, (3) to abstain from attending or giving testimony at any hearing, trial, or deposition.
Scott was charged with multiple counts of domestic violence against Cook. Because we have already determined that Scott offered Cook to help with the children if she would help him get out of jail and that Cook missed three depositions and two trial dates, there is sufficient evidence to support Scott’s obstruction of justice conviction as a Level 5 felony.
Conclusion
We conclude that Scott forfeited his right to confrontation as to Cook’s prior statements due to his own wrongdoing and therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of those statements. We also conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Scott’s obstruction of justice conviction.
Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.