Michael Moore v. Brittney Baker (mem. dec.)
02A03-1601-PO-109
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2016Background
- Moore and Baker had a prior romantic relationship and a child together; relationship ended while Baker was pregnant.
- In 2014 Moore went to Baker’s rented home, falsely claimed to be a police officer, pounded on windows and broke one while Baker and the child hid in the bathroom.
- In the months before July 2015 Moore allegedly engaged in persistent texting, calling, name-calling, threats, and showing up uninvited to locations where Baker was present.
- On July 8, 2015 Moore went to Baker’s workplace after being told he was not welcome, followed her for 20–30 minutes, cursed in front of a customer, and caused Baker to lock herself in a bathroom while police were called.
- Baker obtained an ex parte order the same day; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court entered a protection order finding stalking/domestic or family violence and enjoined Moore from contacting Baker through September 29, 2017.
- Moore appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the protection order (and briefly challenged admission of text messages). The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported issuance of an order for protection under the CPOA based on stalking/domestic or family violence | Baker argued Moore’s repeated unwanted contacts, threats, and aggressive conduct constituted stalking and caused her to feel terrorized, justifying the protection order | Moore argued the evidence was insufficient to prove stalking/domestic violence; also argued admission of certain texts was an abuse of discretion | Court held evidence was sufficient to establish an intentional course of repeated harassment meeting the statutory stalking definition and affirmed the protection order |
| Whether Baker’s continued allowance of parenting time undermined her claim of feeling threatened | Baker testified she sought the order for her safety and did not believe Moore would harm their child; parenting time did not negate fear | Moore argued parenting time showed she was not genuinely frightened | Court rejected Moore’s invitation to reweigh evidence and found parenting time did not defeat Baker’s testimony of fear |
| Whether appellate review required reversal due to appellee’s failure to file a brief | Baker did not file an appellee brief | Moore relied on appellee’s omission to argue for reversal | Court applied prima facie error standard and found Moore failed to show prima facie error; affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion admitting Moore’s text messages | Baker’s case succeeded without relying on texts | Moore contended admission was improper | Court declined to address the argument because the record supported the order without the texts |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (appellate consequences when appellee fails to file a brief; prima facie error standard)
- A.S. v. T.H., 920 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and credibility assessments)
- Parkhurst v. Van Winkle, 786 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (construction of CPOA requirement that domestic or family violence, stalking, or a sex offense occurred)
- Johnson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (definition of “repeated” in stalking context means “more than once")