Thomas Jordan v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 247
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jordan and Price met in 2009, have a child Z.P., and established a paternity; July 2015 parenting time order entered.
- On April 11, 2016 Price obtained an ex parte protective order prohibiting contact and harassment; order stated it did not interfere with parenting time orders.
- On April 12 an IMPD officer informed Jordan of the protective order and that he would receive it by mail and could not contact Price.
- On April 13 Jordan left Price a four-minute voicemail pressuring renegotiation of parenting time with threats and admissions, exceeding discussion of parenting time.
- The State charged two counts of invasion of privacy; at bench trial, Jordan was convicted of one count and acquitted of the other.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding evidence supported the conviction and that mere oral notice sufficed to convict despite not having a written order in hand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence to convict? | Jordan violated the protective order by voicemail. | Voicemail did not violate the order; only discussed parenting time. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2011) (oral notice can satisfy knowledge of protective orders)
- Smith v. State, 999 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (oral notice suffices without listing every term)