Anthony Nelson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1706-CR-1417

Anthony Nelson (defendant) is the father of K.N., who was 12 when the events occurred.
In November 2016 K.N.’s grandmother (Grandmother) obtained and served a protective order prohibiting Nelson from contacting K.N.; Grandmother later was granted guardianship.
Despite service, Nelson left voicemail messages complaining about the protective order and was observed near Grandmother’s mailbox on one occasion.
On December 31, 2016, while K.N. was in her bedroom at Grandmother’s house, she heard tapping at her window and saw a hand holding a cellphone displaying a photo of Nelson’s mother; K.N. believed the person was Nelson.
The State charged Nelson with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy (knowingly violating a protective order by contacting K.N.).
After a bench trial the court found Nelson guilty and sentenced him to time served; Nelson appealed claiming insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence proved Nelson knowingly violated the protective order by contacting K.N.	State: testimony and reasonable inferences (voicemails, mailbox sighting, K.N.’s window observation) support conviction.	Nelson: evidence was circumstantial and insufficient; no one saw him at the window and witnesses were biased.	Affirmed: evidence (including circumstantial and single-witness testimony) was sufficient; appellate court will not reweigh credibility.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (2007) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in favor of verdict)
Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (2012) (verdict may rest on reasonable inferences from evidence)
Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433 (2002) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
McCarthy v. State, 749 N.E.2d 528 (2001) (circumstantial evidence or single-witness testimony can support conviction)