## Facts

- A.B., a fourteen-year-old student, posted profanity-laced comments on MySpace about Shawn Gobert, her former public-school principal.
- One set of comments was posted on a private MySpace profile created in Gobert’s name by another student; access was limited to approved “friends,” and Gobert viewed it only after receiving access during a school investigation.
- A.B. also created a public MySpace group with a title containing an expletive directed at Gobert and the local schools and posted criticism of Gobert’s disciplinary actions toward a friend.
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging conduct that would constitute harassment if committed by an adult under Indiana Code § 35-45-2-2 (2004), based on use of a computer network to communicate with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm and with no intent of legitimate communication.
- The juvenile court adjudicated A.B. a delinquent child; the court of appeals reversed on First Amendment grounds; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.B. used a computer network to communicate “with” (i.e., to) Gobert within the meaning of Indiana’s harassment statute.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove A.B. acted with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm Gobert and with no intent of legitimate communication.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication.
- The Court held the State failed to prove all statutory elements of harassment beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court declined to affirm on the court of appeals’ First Amendment rationale, resolving the case on statutory sufficiency grounds instead.

## Legal Principles

- In a juvenile delinquency case premised on conduct that would be criminal if committed by an adult, the State must prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Indiana Code § 35-45-2-2 (2004) requires proof of a knowing or intentional communication by specified means (including a computer network) made to another person, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, and with no intent of legitimate communication.
- Where online postings are not shown to be directed to the alleged victim, and where the content can reasonably be understood as criticism of school policies or decisions, the “no intent of legitimate communication” element is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Courts may avoid constitutional rulings when a case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds, such as failure of proof on statutory elements.

## Conclusion

Because the record did not sufficiently show that A.B.’s MySpace postings were communications directed to Gobert and did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.B. acted without any intent of legitimate communication, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the juvenile harassment adjudication.


A.B. v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 2008)