Justin D. Maurer v. Crystal Cobb-Maurer
994 N.E.2d 753
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Crystal petitioned for and obtained an ex parte Order for Protection against Justin; a de novo hearing was held in the dissolution action on March 18, 2013.
- At the hearing both parties appeared with counsel but neither testified; counsel presented summary statements and blurred line between argument and evidence.
- The only documentary evidence admitted was a single three‑page email from Justin (Feb. 11, 2013) professing love and urging reconciliation; counsel alleged this was “one of many” messages but offered no additional emails or specifics.
- Crystal’s counsel referenced a December 2012 incident where Justin “physically touched” Crystal while trying to stop her from leaving, but provided no detail about force, threat, or resulting fear.
- The trial court stated the email exchanges reached the level of harassment and issued the protective order; no appellee brief was filed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cobb‑Maurer) | Defendant's Argument (Maurer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported issuance of protective order under CPOA (domestic/family violence or stalking) | Email exchanges and alleged physical contact constitute harassment/stalking supporting a protective order | Insufficient evidence of violence, threat, or stalking; only one email admitted and no testimony from Crystal | Reversed: insufficient evidence to support protective order |
| Whether evidence showed physical harm or credible threat (IC 34‑6‑2‑34.5(1)‑(2)) | Counsel argued physical touching plus pattern of contact demonstrated threat/fear | No testimony or evidence of threats, fear, or violent conduct; email contains no threats | Held no evidence of violence or threat; order could not be based on physical‑harm grounds |
| Whether evidence supported stalking (IC 35‑45‑10‑1) — repeated harassment causing reasonable fear | Counsel asserted multiple contacts (emails/texts) and harassment sufficient for stalking | Only one email admitted; allegations of “many” messages unsupported, and Crystal did not testify about emotional impact | Held stalking not established: record lacked proof of repeated impermissible contact and of effect on victim |
| Admissibility/adequacy of the hearing record where parties did not testify and counsel summarized facts | Plaintiff relied on counsel’s statements and one exhibit to establish pattern and effect | Defendant argued counsel’s characterizations are argument, not evidence; lack of testimony undermines record | Court treated counsel statements as insufficient; reversed due to inadequate probative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (defines “repeated” contact for stalking analysis)
- Andrews v. Ivie, 956 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (upheld protective order where extensive, documented repeated contacts and victim testimony showed emotional distress and attempts to stop contact)
- Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (stalking often involves communications with explicit or implicit threats)
- Smith v. State, 802 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (multiple threatening voicemails supported stalking finding)
- Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate standard when appellee fails to file brief; establishes prima facie error rule)