ILNews

Supreme Court addresses protective orders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court released two opinions today regarding the service of protective orders to respondents.

In Richard Joslyn v State of Indiana, No. 49S04-1102-CR-85, the Supreme Court held that a “minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by (Richard) Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial.” Because of this, the court affirmed Joslyn’s convictions of Class C felony stalking and four counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, which were all based on violations of the protective order.

In Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1005-CR-256, the court reversed Jeffrey Tharp’s conviction of invasion of privacy. In that case, the court wrote that “proof of knowledge must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of oral notice in this case, however, is insufficient to sustain Tharp’s conviction.”

Joslyn claimed he was not properly served with his protective order that had been filed by Stephanie Livingston. A deputy with the Marion County Sheriff’s Department served Joslyn with a copy of the protective order by attaching it to a door at his home. However, under Indiana Trial Rule 4.1 (B), a copy of the order was also to be sent via first class mail. There was no indication this took place.

But at trial, the court admitted a recording and transcript of Joslyn's statement to police where he stated he knew there was a restraining order and that he found it at his residence, even if he was somewhat unclear regarding the date the order was received. The incidents in question, including a note left on the front porch of the home where Livingston was staying, four broken windows to Livingston’s friend’s vehicle, and Joslyn hiding in the crawl space where Livingston lived, took place after the protective order was served.

“We agree with the Court of Appeals that Joslyn’s admission of receipt is sufficient to sustain his convictions,” wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. “As the court noted, the purpose of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act is to promote the protection and safety of all victims of domestic violence and prevent future incidents. It would run contrary to this purpose if we were to embrace Joslyn’s contention that a defendant does not violate the criminal code because of some defect in civil process even where the court had in fact issued a protective order and the defendant in fact knew it had done so.”

Chief Justice Shepard also addressed the importance of protective orders to prevent domestic violence in the Joslyn opinion.

“The declared legislative intent that these provisions in the Code be interpreted in a way that will ‘promote the: protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and [the] prevention of future domestic and family violence,’” he wrote. “Joslyn’s proposed rule that one who acknowledges actual receipt at his home but not an additional copy by mail commits no violation would have real world implications placing far too many Hoosiers at risk of becoming a domestic violence statistic.”

In Tharp, however, it was not as clear as to whether the respondent was aware of the protective order against him.

When officers pulled Tharp’s car over during a traffic stop Feb. 16, 2009, they found the woman who filed a protection order against him on Oct. 1, 2008, Lisa Pitzer, and her daughter, among the passengers in the vehicle.

When officers ran Tharp’s information through a computer records check, they learned about the protective order, as well as the existence of an active warrant for Tharp for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and that his license was suspended.

On Feb. 18, 2009, Pitzer filed a request for dismissal of the protective order and the court granted her request the same day.

At trial, Tharp denied he was ever served with the order or that Pitzer ever told him about it, and he denied that he told the officers that he was aware of the order. A return of service for the order indicated the service attempt had failed because he had moved.

In her testimony, Pitzer said she had told Tharp about the order when they got back together, a few months after she filed the order in October 2008. She also testified that she told him prior to the February 2009 traffic stop, but that she also thought she had the order dismissed prior to that time.

“…was there substantial evidence of probative value from which a finder of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Tharp knowingly violated a protective order? We conclude that the mixed messages from Pitzer are oral notice of the type that is insufficient for a conviction. Put another way, the evidence is insufficient that Tharp received adequate notice of the protective order,” Chief Justice Shepard 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT