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for him to pick up his personal possessions from her house gave him reason to believe that the protective order was no longer valid, but the appellate court rejected his arguments.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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT