« Ind. Courts - "Long-Time Public Defender of Indiana, Susan K. Carpenter, Retires" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Bill to abolish merit system emerges from committee »

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Ind. Courts - Supreme Court issues two opinions today

In Richard Joslyn v. State of Indiana, a 7-page, 5-0 opinion, Chief Justice Shepard writes:

Today we address the importance of protective orders for Hoosiers in two cases. In this case we hold that a minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial. Allowing protective order respondents to evade enforcement through technicalities is counter to the purpose of the Civil Protection Order Act and simply dangerous for those whom the act is designed to protect. Therefore, we affirm Joslyn’s convictions for stalking and invasion of privacy. * * *

Here, Joslyn admitted in statements to police and again during trial that he was aware of the protective order and had read its terms. That sufficed to prove that he “knowingly” violated the order.

Joslyn’s convictions for stalking and invasion of privacy are affirmed.

Dickson, Sullivan, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.

In Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, CJ Shepard writes:
In the second of two cases today addressing the importance of protective orders, we reverse Jeffrey Tharp’s conviction for invasion of privacy. We concluded in our companion case Joslyn v. State, that a criminal defendant may be found guilty of stalking or invasion of privacy where he has actual knowledge of a protective order, even if there were certain omissions of civil process in serving the order upon him. Still, proof of knowledge must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of oral notice in this case, however, is insufficient to sustain Tharp’s conviction. * * *

In short, it appears that the only evidence that Tharp knew of the protective order was from Pitzer telling him about it — at the same time she told him it was no longer valid.

The Court of Appeals reversed Tharp’s conviction, holding that oral notice can suffice but only when the notice comes from an agent of the State. As explained in our decision today in Joslyn v. State, 49S04-1102-CR-85, slip op., (Ind. February 16, 2011), notice can be sufficient under the Civil Protection Order Act even when it comes from someone other than an agent of the State if it includes adequate indication of the order’s terms. Id. at 7.

Still, the civil processes contemplated by the Act play an important role in assuring that respondents have an adequate opportunity to know that they have been enjoined and understand what is covered by the injunction. To restate the test, was there substantial evidence of probative value from which a finder of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Tharp knowingly violated a protective order? We conclude that the mixed messages from Pitzer are oral notice of the type that is insufficient for a conviction. Put another way, the evidence is insufficient that Tharp received adequate notice of the protective order.

Tharp’s conviction for invasion of privacy is reversed.

Dickson, Sullivan, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 16, 2011 03:44 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions