Tharp v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 76
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Tharp was convicted at bench trial of invasion of privacy for violating a protective order issued to Lisa Pitzer.
- Pitzer obtained a protective order ex parte under Indiana Code § 34-26-5 on Oct. 1, 2008; order stated no contact and no further acts of abuse.
- In Feb. 2009, Tharp was pulled over for a traffic stop with Pitzer and her daughter in his vehicle; officers confirmed a valid protective order was in place and Tharp was arrested.
- Pitzer later filed a written request to dismiss the protective order on Feb. 18, 2009, and the court granted it the same day.
- Tharp denied knowledge of the order; the State argued he knowingly violated the order; the trial court found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address the sufficiency of knowledge/notice under the act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of knowledge? | Tharp had actual knowledge via officer testimony and Pitzer’s statements. | Tharp did not receive proper notice and did not know of the order. | No; evidence insufficient to prove knowing violation beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Is oral notice sufficient to prove knowledge under the Civil Protection Order Act when not given by a State agent? | Oral notice can suffice if it adequately conveys the order's terms. | Oral notice alone, especially when nonofficial or inconsistent, is insufficient. | No; mixed messages from Pitzer were insufficient to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| May the court delegate probation-ordered conditions to the probation department? | Not explicitly addressed as dispositive; procedural issue in the appeal. | The trial court erred in delegating probation terms to the probation department. | Issue moot due to reversal of conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809 (Ind.2011) (notice can be sufficient under CPOD Act if terms are adequately indicated)
- Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625 (Ind.2001) (standard for sufficiency and weighing evidence)
- Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind.2005) (probative evidence standard on sufficiency review)
- Tharp v. State, 922 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (Court of Appeals reversal on insufficient notice to convict)