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. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  2. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  3. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  4. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  5. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

ADVERTISEMENT