Intimidation conviction upheld for man who threatened officer on YouTube

A man convicted of intimidation after posting a threatening video meant for a police officer did not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals on Monday that his jury panel was unfair or that his conviction should be overturned.

In Robin Dale Kilgore Peppers v. State of Indiana, 20A-CR-796,Robin Peppers was arrested on a warrant at his home and was cooperative with officers, including St. Joseph County Police Corporal Eric Dietrich. One month after Peppers’ arrest, however, a video he created called “To The Judges” was posted on YouTube.

In the video, Peppers threatened to kill “Big Country,” the nickname of Dietrich, for allegedly pointing a gun in his face and at his stepdaughter during the arrest. An investigation into the video ensued, and Peppers was later charged with one count of Level 6 felony intimidation.

Prior to jury trial, the parties submitted written questions for voir dire, with Peppers submitting 86 questions for the prospective jurors and the state submitting eight. Peppers’ counsel made no objection to the jury panel before it was sworn.

But after he was found guilty of misdemeanor intimidation and sentenced to 247 days, Peppers argued there was insufficient evidence to support the intimidation conviction.

The appellate court concluded otherwise, first finding that in light of the evidence presented at trial, the jury could reasonably infer that Peppers publicly posted the video and, as required under its precedent, that he knew or would have had good reason to believe the video would reach Dietrich.

“Therefore, the State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the communication element of the intimidation statute was satisfied,” Judge James Kirsch wrote for the appellate court.

The COA next rejected Peppers’ argument that the St. Joseph Superior Court violated Indiana Trial Rule 47(D) by denying his counsel the right to question the prospective jurors and to ask them follow-up questions, which Peppers asserted denied him the right to a fair trial.

“Here, Peppers focuses on the quantity of his questions that went unasked, but he does not suggest what his verbal supplement could have produced that could not have been achieved through the written questions both parties submitted nor does he specify which of his questions the trial court should have asked the prospective jurors,” Kirsch wrote.

“Peppers attempts to show that the trial court’s alleged error was prejudicial because two prospective jurors had family who were police officers,” the judge continued. “Peppers overlooks the fact that the trial court asked both prospective jurors whether they could be fair and impartial, and although both indicated that they could, neither of those individuals were chosen to sit on the jury. Peppers was able to exercise his peremptory challenges, and there is no indication that the jurors selected or the alternate were not able to apply the law and the facts fairly and impartially in this case.”

The appellate court therefore found that Peppers failed to show how the trial court’s voir procedure led to a jury panel that was not fair or impartial, further finding no error, fundamental or otherwise, in the trial court’s conduct of voir dire.