ILNews

COA finds man knew of protective order and violated it

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There is ample evidence proving that a Marion County man was aware his ex-girlfriend obtained a protective order against him when he broke into her home, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1304-CR-195, Anthony Smith claimed there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove he knowingly violated the protective order Sara Pearson obtained against him. A police detective verbally told Smith over the phone that he was to have no contact with Pearson. Pearson also told Smith about the protective order in a text message.

She was moving, so Smith wanted to get his weightlifting equipment out of her home. He texted her and she suggested a time, believing the police could be there during the pick up. But Smith wanted to come the next day, to which Pearson said no. Later that day, she came home to find Smith in her home. He grabbed her and took her phone and pepper spray. He ran off when the doorbell rang.

He was charged with and convicted of Class D felony residential entry and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy as well as found to be a habitual offender. He only appealed the invasion of privacy charge.

The cases Smith cited to support his argument, Hendricks v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), and Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 813 (Ind. 2011), the judges found to actually support his conviction.

Smith had actual notice that the protective order prohibited any contact with Pearson. It does not matter that he wasn’t provided with all of the protective order’s specific terms by the detective, Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan.

Smith also claimed he received mixed messages because Pearson’s actions in communicating with him through text messages and arranging a time for him to pick up his personal possessions from her house gave him reason to believe that the protective order was no longer valid, but the appellate court rejected his arguments.  Both the detective and Pearson told Smith the protective order was in place, and Pearson also didn’t allow Smith to come to her home without police.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT