979 N.E.2d 1066
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Patterson was charged with two counts of invasion of privacy under I.C. § 35-46-1-15.1(5) for aiding/causing a no-contact order violation.
- A no-contact order was issued against Patterson’s fiancé, Darden, in August 2010 for domestic battery and remained in effect.
- On Oct. 26, 2011 Deputy Markley informed Patterson at Darden’s home about a subpoena and the no-contact order; Patterson claimed she was visiting and did not reside there.
- Patterson was arrested for aiding in violating the no-contact order (CM-936) during this incident; Darden was arrested for violating the order.
- On Nov. 18, 2011 officers returned to Darden’s residence; Patterson attempted to flee, struggled with officers, and was arrested; she faced additional charges (CM-1026).
- Patterson moved to dismiss the aiding-invading charges; the trial court denied, and the interlocutory appeal was granted; the matter was consolidated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 35-46-1-15.1(5) covers a protected person. | Patterson argues the statute does not criminalize a protected party’s conduct. | State argues the statute punishes knowingly violating a no-contact order by any person. | No; statute does not apply to protected persons. |
| Desire for legislative exclusion of protected persons from complicity liability. | Patterson asserts no legislative intent to criminalize aiding a violation by a protected person. | State maintains statute’s plain text covers aiding violations irrespective of status. | Court agrees with Patterson that protections not to criminalize protected persons. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lucas, 100 Ohio St.3d 1, 795 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio 2003) (protected-party invitation not criminalized; compulsion to devise invitation is irrelevant to culpability)
- Bei Bei Shuai v. State, 966 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (de novo review of statute interpretation; accept charging facts as true)