Joslyn v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 74
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Livingston obtained a civil protective order against Joslyn in November 2008 under Indiana Civil Protective Order Act.
- The order prohibited Joslyn from contacting Livingston; service failed to include a mailed copy to Joslyn as TR 4.1 requires.
- Joslyn remained aware of the order from other sources and admitted to knowing of its terms.
- Joslyn was charged December 3, 2008 with stalking, four counts of invasion of privacy, and resisting law enforcement.
- At trial, evidence included Joslyn's admission of receipt of the order and his conduct indicating knowledge of its existence and terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is proper service required for conviction? | Joslyn argues lack of proper service voids convictions. | Joslyn contends defective service forecloses knowledge. | No; actual notice suffices for conviction despite service defect. |
| Does admission of knowledge of the order sustain the convictions? | Actual notice from service should prove violation. | Defendant asserts service defect cannot be cured by admissions. | Yes; admissions of receipt and knowledge sustain convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hendricks v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (notice by family and officer corroborates knowledge of order)
- Dixon v. State, 869 N.E.2d 516 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (oral notice by officer can supplement knowledge of order)
- Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind.2001) (standard for sufficiency in reviewing evidence)
- Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.2000) (probative evidence standard for sufficiency review)