Joshua Perry Cruse v. C.C., 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 301

Background

Joshua Cruse and C.C. divorced in June 2015; they have three children together.
After multiple confrontations between the parents (many occurring at the children’s school or events), C.C. sought and the trial court issued an ex parte protective order on June 18, 2015, later reaffirmed after a hearing on November 24, 2015.
The protective order barred Cruse from contacting C.C. except about parenting time, and then only in writing or through a parenting coordinator; contact with the children was not restricted.
C.C.’s testimony described incidents: public confrontation at a kindergarten graduation and in a parking lot; entering C.C.’s workplace and removing her from a classroom; repeatedly staying at the school and making staff uncomfortable; and confronting a male colleague at a baseball game (during which Cruse was holding a bat, according to Cruse’s testimony) and warning him to stay away from the children.
The trial court concluded the facts supported a protective order; on appeal Cruse argued insufficient evidence supported the order. The majority reversed; a dissent would have affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported issuance of a protective order for "domestic or family violence" (physical harm or placing in fear of physical harm)	C.C.: Cruse’s confrontations (including at child events and workplace) and the bat incident placed her in fear of physical harm	Cruse: No evidence of attempted, threatened, or actual physical harm to C.C.; any threats were directed at others; bat was held non‑threateningly	Majority: Insufficient evidence of physical harm or placing C.C. in fear; reversed
Whether evidence supported a protective order based on stalking (repeated harassment causing a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and actually causing the victim to feel so)	C.C.: Repeated, unwanted contacts at work and child events and the baseball confrontation constitute stalking causing actual and reasonable fear	Cruse: Conduct was unpleasant but not objectively terrorizing; testimony did not show C.C. was actually terrified or intimidated	Majority: Insufficient evidence that course of conduct would cause or actually caused terror/fear; reversed
Whether appellate prima facie error rule shifts burden because appellee did not file a brief	C.C. (implied): Trial court’s judgment should stand; appellee’s absence does not preclude affirmance if record supports it	Cruse: Prima facie error standard applies; if appellant shows facial error, reversal appropriate	Majority: Applied prima facie error standard and found reversible error
Whether credibility inferences (e.g., threat posed by bat) could support affirmance	C.C.: Trial court could credit her version and infer the bat-confrontation was threatening; fact-finder may reject Cruse’s benign account	Cruse: Trial testimony showed bat held non‑threateningly; C.C. did not mention the bat	Dissent: Credibility must be construed in favor of trial court; evidence supports inference of threat and stalking; would affirm

Key Cases Cited

Evans v. Thomas, 976 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (appellate court may reverse on prima facie error when appellee does not file a brief)
A.S. v. T.H., 920 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency: do not reweigh evidence or judge credibility)
Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (application of prima facie error rule when appellee fails to file brief)
Murfitt v. Murfitt, 809 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (purpose of prima facie error rule is to relieve court from developing appellee’s arguments)
Farmer v. Spradlin (In re B.N.C.), 822 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate courts must not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
Slaton v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1343 (Ind. 1987) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the fact-finder)
State v. Moriarity, 832 N.E.2d 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (appellant bears burden of persuasion on appeal)