Todd DeWayne Kelly v. State of Indiana, 13 N.E.3d 902

Todd Dewayne Kelly was subject to an ex parte protective order (Oct. 4, 2011) prohibiting direct or indirect contact with his ex-wife S.B.; Kelly knew of the order.
Kelly and S.B. share a daughter, L.K.; Kelly sent repeated voicemails and texts to L.K., some of which were threatening in prior months.
On March 5, 2012, Kelly texted L.K.: “contacting court next week, if you see your mom tell her I said rattle, rattle, rattle.” L.K. immediately showed the text to S.B.
S.B. interpreted the phrase as an intimidating threat based on prior use by Kelly; she was upset and reported the contact to police; Officer Henson investigated and forwarded the case.
The State charged Kelly with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for violating the protective order; at trial the court also heard evidence Kelly later messaged S.B. “rattle, rattle, rattle” via Facebook.
Following a two-day bench trial the court found Kelly guilty and sentenced him to one year with 180 days executed; Kelly appealed arguing insufficient evidence that he indirectly communicated with S.B.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Kelly knowingly or intentionally violated the ex parte protective order by indirectly communicating with S.B.	The State: Kelly sent a text to L.K. knowing she lived with S.B.; L.K. showed the message to S.B., and Kelly later sent a Facebook message — therefore indirect contact occurred.	Kelly: The text to a third party (L.K.) did not constitute direct or indirect communication with S.B.; Huber shows no liability where a third party refuses to convey a message.	Court affirmed: evidence was sufficient — L.K. conveyed the message (unlike Huber) and S.B. reasonably perceived it as threatening; conviction upheld.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review and inferences drawn from evidence)
Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012) (reiterating that appellate review limits reweighing evidence and focuses on reasonable inferences)
Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 2002) (appellate courts must not reassess witness credibility)
Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (no indirect communication when a third party expressly refuses to convey defendant's message)
Wright v. State, 688 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (definition of "communication" as transmission of information)
Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (related definition and discussion of communications principles)