Dennis Linderman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1602-CR-398
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 13, 2016Background
- Dennis Linderman and estranged wife Kelly had a court-ordered no contact (protective) order signed by Linderman in October 2015; the order included a written acknowledgment signed by Linderman and expressly forbade entering or staying at the petitioner’s residence even if invited.
- On November 2, 2015, police responded to Kelly’s home; Linderman was on the front porch and was arrested for violating the no contact order after Kelly reported a domestic disturbance.
- Linderman was charged with multiple misdemeanors; a jury convicted him of invasion of privacy (Class A misdemeanor) and acquitted him of the other charges.
- At trial Kelly testified Linderman had telephonically contacted her via a third party, came to the marital home, refused to leave when asked, drank heavily, yelled, and impeded her attempts to call 911.
- Linderman argued he honestly and reasonably believed the order did not apply to Kelly (only to her children) and that Kelly had invited him to the house, raising a mistake-of-fact defense.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Linderman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant knowingly or intentionally violated a valid no contact order | Evidence showed Linderman contacted Kelly by phone and returned to her residence, stayed and refused to leave despite being told not to, supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Linderman claimed an honest, reasonable mistake of fact — he thought the order applied only to Kelly’s children and that Kelly invited him to stay | Conviction affirmed: sufficient evidence supported that he knowingly/intentionally violated the order and the mistake-of-fact defense failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Dixon v. State, 869 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding invasion of privacy conviction where defendant returned to protected person’s residence after being informed of protective order)
- Chavers v. State, 991 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (defendant bears burden to prove honest and reasonable mistake of fact defense when State makes prima facie case)