Shelly M. Phipps v. State of Indiana, 77 N.E.3d 180

Phipps, a church member, complained that pastor K.G. breached confidentiality and hugged her; she sought an apology and sent letters/emails to him and church elders.
K.G. obtained a protective order (2008) prohibiting Phipps from contacting him; Phipps later pleaded guilty to two separate misdemeanor invasion-of-privacy violations for contacting K.G. (2009, 2011).
The protective order was extended in 2016 after a hearing finding ongoing threat/stalking; the extension noted Phipps continued sending letters to the court and church members.
On February 28, 2016, Phipps emailed three church elders an ultimatum to make K.G. apologize, resign, retire, or be arrested; an elder forwarded that email to K.G., who contacted police.
Phipps was charged with two invasion-of-privacy counts (one elevated to a Level 6 felony based on prior convictions). A jury convicted; the trial court sentenced her to 2.5 years (with work release and probation).
The appellate majority reversed the felony conviction, holding the State failed to prove Phipps intended to communicate with K.G.; a dissent would have affirmed, finding circumstantial evidence supported intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Phipps)	Held
Whether sending an email to church elders constituted indirect communication with protected person in violation of a protective order	The email contained demands directed at K.G. and was naturally communicated to him when elders forwarded it; intent to contact can be inferred from conduct and ultimatum language	Email was addressed to the elders seeking institutional action; Phipps did not ask elders to forward it to K.G. and did not intend to contact him	Reversed: insufficient evidence that Phipps intended to contact K.G.; her intended recipient was the elders, not K.G.

Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (sufficiency-of-evidence principles)
C.W.W. v. State, 688 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (communication includes indirect means; filing suit held not a contact)
Kelly v. State, 13 N.E.3d 902 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (text shown to victim’s child was sufficient to prove indirect communication)
Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (attempt to have advocate call victim was incomplete contact)
McCaskill v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence; natural and usual inferences)
Love v. State, 61 N.E.3d 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (jury’s credibility determinations and inferences from circumstantial evidence)