C.V. v. C.R.
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 421
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- C.R. found four anonymous sexually suggestive notes on her person and car at times she was at the V.A.; she later matched note dates to C.V.’s V.A. visits and officer Trama confirmed via surveillance that C.V. left at least one note. C.V. admitted to leaving the notes and stopped after the officer told him to.
- C.R. filed a pro se petition for an ex parte protective order; the trial court initially granted it and later held a hearing after C.V. requested one. C.R. proceeded without counsel and declined continuance.
- At the hearing C.R. testified about the notes’ content in general terms but failed to admit the physical notes or the surveillance video due to foundation/offer problems; those exhibits were excluded.
- The trial court found by a preponderance that C.V. stalked C.R. and issued a two-year protective order prohibiting contact.
- On appeal C.V. argued insufficient evidence of stalking because the notes’ contents were never admitted; the appellate court reviewed for prima facie error given the appellee did not file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported issuance of a protective order for stalking | C.R.: notes and testimony show repeated harassment causing fear (stalking) | C.V.: contents of notes were not admitted, so no proof his conduct would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened | Reversed: insufficient evidence of stalking where notes and video were excluded and other evidence showed limited, nonpersistent contact |
Key Cases Cited
- Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App.) (contact on more than one occasion is not stalking without more; vagueness about frequency/duration undermines stalking claim)
- J.K. v. T.C., 25 N.E.3d 179 (Ind. Ct. App.) (significant ramifications of improperly granted protective orders)
- Tons v. Bley, 815 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence; consider probative evidence supporting judgment)
- Barger v. Barger, 887 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. Ct. App.) (protective order consequences referenced)
- Andrews v. Ivie, 956 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. Ct. App.) (example where protective order was affirmed based on numerous contacts, unwelcome gifts, and evidence of effect on victim)
- AS. v. T.H., 920 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate procedure when appellee fails to file brief)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind.) (definition of prima facie error on appeal)