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for him to pick up his personal possessions from her house gave him reason to believe that the protective order was no longer valid, but the appellate court rejected his arguments.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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT