Indiana Court of Appeals affirms protection order against former college student

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a two-year protection order filed against a former St. Joseph County college student who argued there was little evidence he posed a credible threat.

On Jan. 16, the appellee, identified in court papers as “M.D.,” requested a protection order against the appellant, who was identified as “R.P.” and whom she says stalked her and committed sexual battery.

The St. Joseph Superior Court issued the order on March 27, which stated that R.P. was not to be within 300 feet of M.D. with the exception of participating in legal proceedings. M.D. previously asked their unnamed university for an absolute 6-month, no contact order, which the university granted and later extended until after R.P.’s graduation in May.

The court found that R.P. posed a credible threat to the appellee and had committed a sex offense and harassed her, according to court documents. The court noted escalating behavior that included giving the appellee a book in which he had marked a chapter about death and then refusing to leave her room one night and trying to drag her into her bed.

R.P. disputed those allegations in his appeal and argued that the trial court issued the order based on insufficient evidence. Appellate Judge Margaret Robb addressed each of the disputed allegations.

Robb affirmed the trial court’s finding that R.P. posed a “credible threat” to M.D. She cites the fact that soon after the two met as freshmen on a “first aid student team,” R.P. attempted to kiss her during an astronomy event even though he knew she was engaged. He also touched her hair, tried to get her alone and told her he loved her.

R.P.’s behavior escalated on Jan. 22, 2025, when he refused to leave M.D.’s room despite her many pleas, according to court documents. M.D. awoke the next morning to R.P. kissing and groping her.

Robb cited an Indiana Supreme Court rule stating that a person qualifies as a credible threat if the respondent’s actions provide reasonable grounds to believe a threat of violence exists.

Judge Robb also affirmed the trial court’s finding that R.P.’s actions constituted sexual battery, which according to Indiana Code 35-42-4-8(a) involves a person intending to arouse or satisfy either the alleged victim’s sexual desires or their own by touching a person when they are compelled to submit by force or threat of force or unable to give consent (e.g. mentally disabled), or unaware that the touching is occurring.

“M.D. reasonably did not feel free to resist his groping because R.P. pulled her closer to him in the night and had refused to leave after repeatedly being asked to do so,” she wrote.

Robb also agreed that R.P.’s behavior constituted harassment, which Indiana’s Civil Protection Order Act says could include “repeated or continuing impermissible conduct.”

After the Jan. 22, 2025, incident, R.P. asked M.D. to hang out and repeatedly texted her. A few days later, he contacted two of her friends and her advisor about M.D.’s mental health. He told the advisor that M.D. planned to commit suicide using drugs she stole from a university lab.

Judges Cale Bradford and Dana Kenworthy concurred in the decision.