ILNews

Dad’s text to daughter supports violation of protective order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Johnson County man who sent a text message to his daughter to give to his ex-wife – who had a protective order against him – violated that order when he sent his daughter the message, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

S.B., who has remarried and has two children with her new husband, had a protective order in effect against her ex-husband Todd Dewayne Kelly. Kelly was prohibited from having direct or indirect contact with her. He sent their daughter, L.K., a text and told her to give the message to her mother.

The message said “contacting court next week, if you see your mom tell her I said rattle, rattle, rattle.” S.B. believed it was an attempt to threaten or intimidate her based on Kelly’s previous use of the phrase “rattle, rattle, rattle” to intimidate her while they were still married.

Kelly was charged with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and found guilty. He was sentenced to one year in jail, with 180 days executed and the rest suspended – provided he refrained from contacting his ex-wife.

Kelly cited Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to support his claim that the state didn’t prove he directly or indirectly contacted his ex-wife. In Huber, the appeals court found the defendant didn’t directly or indirectly contact the victim when he asked a domestic violence advocate, who refused, to contact the victim.

Unlike the third party in Huber, L.K. did not tell Kelly that she would not give the message to S.B, Judge Cale Bradford wrote. She showed it to her mom and stepdad, and they contacted police on the belief the message was threatening. Kelly even used the same “rattle” phrase on S.B.’s Facebook page while the misdemeanor charge was pending.

The judges declined to reweigh the evidence and affirmed Kelly’s conviction.

The case is Todd DeWayne Kelly v. State of Indiana, 41A01-1311-CR-519.

 

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. 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.

  2. 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."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT