Anthony Smith v. State of Indiana
999 N.E.2d 914
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Smith and Pearson ended a two-year relationship in early January 2012; Pearson obtained an ex parte protective order on January 20, 2012, and changed her locks the next day.
- On January 26, 2012, Detective Andre Bell called Smith, told him he was being served with the protective order, and warned he could not contact Pearson by call, text, mail, email, threats, or any contact; Bell entered verbal service in the Protection Order Registry.
- On February 11, 2012, while Pearson was preparing her house for sale, Smith appeared at her home, forced entry into the garage door, grabbed Pearson, took her phone and pepper spray, then fled when an appraiser arrived; Pearson called police who observed damage.
- The State charged Smith with Class D felony residential entry and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy (violating a protective order); Smith contested knowledge and presence, claiming he was home and had not responded to texts.
- A jury convicted Smith of both offenses; the court adjudicated him a habitual offender and imposed an aggregate 6.5-year sentence (residential entry with enhancement; invasion of privacy sentenced concurrently).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Smith knowingly violated the protective order by going to/entering Pearson’s residence | Verbal service by Detective Bell plus Pearson’s texts showed Smith had actual knowledge and nevertheless unlawfully entered and confronted Pearson | Smith lacked actual knowledge because Bell did not recite every specific term; Pearson’s texts and invitation suggested the order was no longer valid | Affirmed: verbal notification that contact was prohibited was sufficient to prove knowledge; Pearson’s communications did not negate that knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendricks v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (officer and protected person notifying defendant of an emergency protective order supports finding of knowledge)
- Dixon v. State, 869 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (verbal notice to defendant to stay away from residence sufficient where defendant returned afterward)
- Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809 (Ind. 2011) (minor service defects can be cured by defendant’s admission of receipt; single notification of prohibition on contact may suffice)
- Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2011) (mixed oral messages from protected person that order was no longer in effect can be insufficient to support conviction)