Background
Multiple Indiana courts had already determined that Harve Hensley was neither trustee nor beneficiary of his late father’s trust and had no ownership interest in trust property sold to Gabrielle Hubbard in 2019. Hensley nevertheless continued asserting ownership. He confronted Hubbard’s family, directed a threatening social-media post at her father, changed his mailing address to the property, attempted to record quitclaim deeds, leased the land to a farmer, paid property taxes, and repeatedly filed purported certifications of trust. Earlier conduct produced forgery and theft convictions and a protective order for Hubbard.
The campaign continued after the protective order was extended through 2028. In 2024 and 2025, Hensley filed additional trust certifications, paid taxes, sent Hubbard’s lawyer a notice demanding that she vacate, and brought an eviction action. One certification filed with the county auditor declared under penalty of perjury that Hensley was the trust’s sole beneficiary and sole trustee. Hubbard testified that the conduct terrorized her. She removed the property’s mailbox and demolished its residence and barn so Hensley could not hide there or claim to live there, and she took safety precautions whenever visiting.
Following a bench trial at which Hensley represented himself, the court convicted him of Level 5 felony stalking and Level 6 felony perjury. It imposed consecutive terms totaling six years. He challenged amendment of the stalking charge, denial of his Trial Rule 41(B) dismissal motion, an alleged variance between the charging period and the evidence, the sufficiency of the perjury evidence, and his sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed every issue. Judge Felix first held that Hensley waived his challenge to amendment of the charging information because he failed to provide the transcript of the amendment hearing. Without it, the panel could not determine whether he objected or whether the trial court conducted the required prejudice inquiry. An incomplete record substantially impeded review.
The stalking evidence was sufficient. Level 5 stalking required repeated or continuing harassment that would cause and did cause fear or emotional distress, plus an existing protective order. Hensley’s claims were not protected lawful activity: final rulings had established that he owned no interest in the land. His 2024 and 2025 tax payments, trust filings, and demand that Hubbard leave were repeated acts aimed at dispossessing her. The panel stated that a belief disconnected from those repeated adjudications could not immunize harassment merely because Hensley characterized his conduct as pursuing property rights.
No fatal variance arose from the trial court’s consideration of acts outside the charging dates. Time was not an element of stalking, and the earlier conduct properly supplied context. More importantly, six acts within the charged period independently supported the conviction. Considering other events did not mislead Hensley in preparing his defense or expose him to another prosecution for the same conduct.
The perjury conviction also stood. Hensley’s sworn statements that he was sole trustee and beneficiary were false factual assertions, not merely debatable legal conclusions. Trusteeship and beneficial ownership had already been adjudicated in proceedings in which he participated, and he had been told that any certification claiming otherwise was null and void. A factfinder could conclude that he knowingly made a false, material statement under oath.
Finally, the six-year aggregate sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B). The offenses were the latest stage of a prolonged, premeditated effort that deprived Hubbard of peaceful use of her property and caused continuing fear. Related forgery and theft convictions had not deterred Hensley, and he maintained the same ownership claim at sentencing without remorse.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who omits a hearing transcript risks waiver when the missing record is necessary to evaluate the claimed procedural error.
- Court filings and facially ordinary property acts can constitute stalking when they form a repeated, unlawful campaign directed at a protected person.
- Conduct outside a charged stalking period may provide context, while acts inside the period can independently eliminate a claimed fatal variance.
- A sworn assertion contrary to finally adjudicated status can support perjury; calling it a legal interpretation does not make the underlying fact genuinely disputed.
Why It Matters
Hensley shows Indiana practitioners that legal process itself can become the instrument of harassment. Recording documents, paying taxes, issuing notices, and filing civil actions are not insulated when the actor knows that courts have conclusively rejected the asserted right and uses those acts to intimidate or dispossess another person. Prosecutors still must prove direction, repetition, knowledge, and actual and objectively reasonable distress.
The opinion also offers an appellate-record warning: substantive arguments cannot be reviewed when the appellant omits the very hearing at which preservation and prejudice would appear. Civil lawyers confronting serial false claims should maintain a complete chronology of judgments, notices, filings, communications, and protective orders because that history may establish both knowledge and the meaning of later conduct.