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for him to pick up his personal possessions from her house gave him reason to believe that the protective order was no longer valid, but the appellate court rejected his arguments.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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT