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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT