This case involves a conviction for stalking under Indiana Code section 35-45-10-5(a) (2008). A majority of the Court of Appeals held that a span of twenty-two months between contacts would not fit the definition of repeated or continuing harassment and therefore would not support a conviction for stalking. We disagree and affirm the trial court, holding that the lag in time between the harassing calls in 2006 and the subsequent single call in 2008 did not foreclose the conviction for stalking, particularly since much of the break in time between the calls was due to defendant’s incarceration. Ultimately, the record demonstrated the calls involved a course of conduct involving repeated and continuing harassment of the victims. [Footnote omitted.]
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Sullivan, J., dissents, believing the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, 948 N.E.2d 820,
to have been correct.