ILNews

Court affirms protective order without evidentiary hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Shelby County man’s protective order against a neighbor is valid even though the trial court didn’t hold an evidentiary hearing or honor the neighbor’s request for a continuance, the Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The court held that the nature of claims in Ray Evans v. Eric L. Thomas, 73A04-1112-PO-670, were sufficient to warrant quick action by the court. Thomas claimed that disputes with Evans, with whom he shared a driveway, had escalated to violence and that he feared for his safety.

Thomas went to Shelby Superior Court in December 2011 and asked for a protective order against Evans, alleging among other things that Evans punched him a month earlier, had pulled a gun on him in 2005, had shot and killed the family cat at some point, and had threatened and stalked his family.

The court set a hearing on the protective order for Dec. 20, 2011, and Evans was served notice on Dec. 15. On Dec. 19, Evans moved for a continuance on the basis that he would be unable to retain counsel by the hearing date.

The court denied the request for continuance and noted that requests for protective orders are to be handled promptly. Evans told the court he did not object to the issuance of the P.O., which would have required him to surrender his firearms to the sheriff’s department.

The appeals court noted that the trial court assured Evans that if he wished to file petition to modify after retaining counsel, the court would consider it.

“We conclude with little hesitation that the seriousness of the allegations in Thomas’s petition warranted the swiftest of judicial action,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the unanimous panel. “Further delay might have put Thomas at risk. Evans has not established an abuse of discretion in this regard.”

The court also disagreed with Evans’ contention that a full evidentiary hearing is required for issuance of a P.O.

Evans also was unsuccessful in arguing that he had insufficient time to obtain counsel or that he didn’t understand the proceedings in which he said he did not object to the P.O.

“Evans does not explain how either of these things, even if true, denied him notice, the opportunity to be heard, or the opportunity to confront witnesses. Evans has not established that his rights to due process and due course of law were infringed,” Bradford wrote.


 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT