William Chavers v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 337
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Amber Cushenberry obtained a civil protection order against Chavers in Marion Superior Court; it expired Sept. 10, 2012.
- At a Sept. 10 renewal hearing Cushenberry failed to appear; the court dismissed the civil order, and Chavers was advised of the dismissal.
- Sept. 17, 2012, Chavers pled guilty to D felony criminal confinement in Court 16 and a no contact order was entered as a probation condition.
- Cushenberry sought to vacate the probation no contact order; she received papers showing the civil order’s dismissal but did not notify Court 16 to vacate the no contact order.
- Sept. 20, 2012, Chavers was oriented on probation terms and later visited Cushenberry’s home, where a GPS indicated his presence while the Court 16 no contact order was still in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of knowing violation of the no contact order? | Chavers knowingly violated the Court 16 order. | Chavers relied on Cushenberry’s assertion that the order was vacated. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether mistake of fact could negate culpability for invasion of privacy | State bears burden to disprove any honest, reasonable mistake of fact. | Chavers’s mistaken belief that the order was vacated negates culpability. | No; court concluded no reasonable, honest mistake shown. |
| Was Chavers’s reliance on Cushenberry’s statements reasonable under the circumstances? | Chavers reasonably relied on dismissal papers. | Reliance was unreasonable given conflicting information and lack of verification. | No; failure to verify and conflicting information undermine reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (standard for sufficiency; view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
- Saunders v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (State must negate an honest mistake of fact beyond reasonable doubt)
- Hoskins v. State, 563 N.E.2d 571 (Ind.1990) (burden shifting for defense of mistake of fact)
- Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind.1997) (treatment of mistake of fact elements for invasion of privacy)
- Smith v. State, 477 N.E.2d 857 (Ind.1985) (elements of culpability and mistaken belief)
- Ringham v. State, 768 N.E.2d 893 (Ind.2002) ( State bears burden to disprove defense beyond reasonable doubt)
- Bergmann v. State, 486 N.E.2d 653 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (evidentiary burden and defense of mistake of fact)