Ronald Gaines v. State of Indiana, 999 N.E.2d 999

Gaines was charged with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly violating an ex parte protective order issued under IC 34-26-5.
An ex parte protective order against Gaines was issued to prevent domestic or family violence and served on Gaines on May 17, 2012.
On June 7, 2012, Gaines was arrested after a police visit to S.G.’s residence where the protected person resided; the garage door was open.
State’s Exhibit 1 is a certified copy of the ex parte protective order; page 2 is a sheriff’s service return indicating personal service on May 17, 2012.
State’s Exhibit 2 is a certified printout from the Indiana Protection Order Registry showing Gaines received personal service on May 17, 2012; Gaines objected to the exhibits but the trial court admitted them.
Gaines was convicted at bench trial and sentenced to 365 days with 180 days’ probation; he appeals identifying variance and evidentiary admission as issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a fatal variance between charging info and proof?	Gaines	Gaines	Variance not fatal; no prejudice or double jeopardy risk shown.
Was admission of Exhibits 1 and 2 error?	State	Gaines	Exhibits properly admitted; error if any was harmless as Exhibit 2 is cumulative.

Broude v. State, 956 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (variance not always fatal; test requires prejudice or double jeopardy risk)
King v. State, 985 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (confrontation considerations for testimonial vs non-testimonial evidence)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (public records not testimonial when created for administrative purposes)
Copeland, 306 P.3d 610 (Or. 2013) (certificate of service not testimonial; administrative purpose)
Shivers, 280 P.3d 635 (Az. Ct. App. 2012) (declaration of service non-testimonial; routine task)