T.L.E. v. A.D.H. (mem. dec.)
53A04-1612-PO-2901
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Parties: A.D.H. obtained an ex parte protective order barring T.L.E. from contacting or coming near A.D.H., her residence, school, or workplace after interpersonal conflicts and alleged threats.
- Contempt petition: A.D.H. filed a petition alleging T.L.E. violated the order by appearing at A.D.H.’s apartment complex on Oct. 27–28, 2016, making an obscene gesture, and posting threats on Facebook.
- Proceedings: Hearing was held Nov. 14 and continued to Nov. 21, 2016; trial court found a prima facie violation, ordered a psychological evaluation, and ultimately found T.L.E. in contempt.
- Sanctions: The court suspended a remand to jail (stated as “indefinite” until compliance/psychological profile) and later ordered T.L.E. to participate in a mentoring program after the psychologist’s report; imprisonment was never executed.
- Appeal: T.L.E. appealed, arguing the court relied on evidence outside the record (due process), the evidence was insufficient to prove willful contempt, and the sanctions preclude purging contempt. Appellee did not file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.D.H.) | Defendant's Argument (T.L.E.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court relied on evidence outside the record, violating due process | Court properly considered admitted testimony and prior-filed records to avoid needless repetition | Trial court referenced facts from other hearings and records without providing T.L.E. notice, preventing cross-examination | Court found no prima facie error; no contemporaneous objection; relied on hearing testimony, not improper outside evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence that T.L.E. violated protective order | Testimony (A.D.H., her mother, cab drivers) established T.L.E. was present and made obscene gesture — a prohibited contact | Evidence was ambiguous as to date, context, and willfulness; gesture occurred within a group and parking lot not expressly barred | Court held evidence sufficient; appellate court will not reweigh credibility and credited A.D.H.’s testimony |
| Whether contempt required willfulness and whether willfulness was shown | Willful disobedience required; testimony showed intentional gesture toward A.D.H. despite order | Argued lack of specific prohibition against presence in parking lot and lack of proof of intentional, willful conduct | Court found willfulness adequately supported by testimony; affirmed contempt |
| Whether sanctions are purgeable (coercive vs. punitive) | Sanctions (suspended remand and mentoring) were coercive, intermediate steps allowing compliance; not punitive and can be purged | Remand described as “indefinite” and mentoring lacked parameters, precluding ability to purge contempt | Court held sanctions were coercive/suspended and not incapable of being purged; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for contempt findings)
- Barnhart v. State, 15 N.E.3d 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Agilera v. State, 862 N.E.2d 298 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion definition)
- A.S. v. T.H., 920 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (prima facie error standard when appellee fails to file brief)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (definition of prima facie error)
- Dilts v. State, 49 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (waiver for failure to make contemporaneous objection)
- Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility on sufficiency review)
- Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (civil contempt sanctions may coerce compliance and be avoidable)
- MacIntosh v. MacIntosh, 749 N.E.2d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (suspended sentence to coerce compliance is nonpunitive)