MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 26 2017, 10:53 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Troy D. Warner Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana South Bend, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Betts, October 26, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1705-CR-1154 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Margot F. Reagan, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Elizabeth A. Hardtke, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D04-1610-CM-5039
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Christopher Betts appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for class A
misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The sole issue presented for our review is
whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] Betts and A.R. were in a relationship for ten years and have one daughter,
H.B., born on September 4, 2006. The relationship ended, and on October 6,
2014, the St. Joseph Circuit Court issued a protective order under cause number
71C01-1409-PO-1190. The order prohibited Betts from “threatening to commit
or committing acts of domestic or family violence, stalking or sex offenses
against [A.R.] and the following designated family or household members …
[H.B.] ….” State’s Ex. A. The order further ordered Betts “to stay away from
the following place(s) that is/are frequented by [A.R.] and/or [A.R.’s] family or
household members: … Martin Luther King Center.” Id. The sheriff served
the order by hanging “a copy on door” at 3530 Northside Boulevard,
Apartment 4, Betts’s last known address, on October 8, 2014. State’s Ex. B.
[3] H.B. had been attending after-school care at the Martin Luther King Center
since before the protective order was entered. A.R. provided a copy of the
protective order and Betts’s picture to the center. In September 2015, Betts
called A.R. and asked her if he could see H.B. for her birthday. A.R. discussed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 2 of 6 the protective order with Betts, and Betts knew that he was not permitted to see
his daughter pursuant to the order.
[4] On April 28, 2016, Betts went to the Martin Luther King Center during the
after-school hours. The director of the center, Josephine Merriweather, asked
Betts if she could help him. She noticed that Betts kept staring at the children
through the window separating the lobby area from the gym where the children
were playing. Betts told Merriweather that he was interested in lifting weights
and perhaps a membership to the center. During their conversation, Betts kept
looking through the window toward the children. Merriweather got a “funny
feeling” and went to find her file containing a copy of the protective order and
Betts’s picture. Tr. at 33. Merriweather then asked Betts if he was H.B.’s
father. Betts responded, “Yes,” and stated, “I just want to see my daughter.”
Id. Merriweather told Betts to leave or she would call the police. Betts exited
the property.
[5] Thereafter, the State charged Betts with one count of class A misdemeanor
invasion of privacy for violating the protective order. Following a bench trial,
the trial court found Betts guilty as charged and sentenced him to ninety days in
the St. Joseph County Jail. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [6] Betts contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 3 of 6 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the
trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will
not disturb it. Id. at 500.
[7] To convict Betts of invasion of privacy, the State was required to prove that he
knowingly or intentionally violated a protective order to prevent domestic or
family violence issued under Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-5. See Ind. Code §
35-46-1-15.1(1). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he engages
in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind. Code
§ 35-41-2-2(a). Betts contends that there is insufficient evidence that he
knowingly violated the protective order because the State failed to prove that he
had knowledge of the existence of the protective order prohibiting him from
going to the Martin Luther King Center, and further that there was no evidence
that his daughter, H.B., was present at the Martin Luther King Center on the
day in question. We find the first argument unpersuasive and the second
argument irrelevant.
[8] Regarding his first argument, the protective order issued here specifically
provided that, in addition to staying away from A.R. and H.B., Betts was
“ordered to stay away from the following place(s) that is/are frequented by
[A.R.] and/or [A.R.’s] family or household members: … Martin Luther King
Center.” State’s Ex. A. The State presented evidence that the protective order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 4 of 6 was served by copy service at Betts’s known legal address at the time it was
issued.1 The trial court did not find credible Betts’s assertions that he was
unaware of the protective order because he had moved from the Northside
Boulevard address just prior to the issuance of the order. Indeed, the record
indicates that the Northside Boulevard address is currently still listed by the
Bureau of Motor Vehicles as Betts’s legal address. Further, A.R. testified that
she spoke with Betts in 2015, that they discussed the protective order, and that
Betts was aware of its existence. Again, the trial court did not find credible
Betts’s claims that he had no idea he was prohibited from going to the Martin
Luther King Center or even that his daughter attended after-school care at the
facility. His evasive behavior while at the center undermines the credibility of
his testimony and supports the trial court’s determination. The State presented
substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could infer
that Betts had knowledge of the protective order and its terms.
[9] Moreover, contrary to Betts’s argument, the State was not required to prove
that H.B. was present at the center when he went there. The protective order
did not require that H.B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 26 2017, 10:53 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Troy D. Warner Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana South Bend, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Betts, October 26, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1705-CR-1154 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Margot F. Reagan, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Elizabeth A. Hardtke, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D04-1610-CM-5039
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Christopher Betts appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for class A
misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The sole issue presented for our review is
whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] Betts and A.R. were in a relationship for ten years and have one daughter,
H.B., born on September 4, 2006. The relationship ended, and on October 6,
2014, the St. Joseph Circuit Court issued a protective order under cause number
71C01-1409-PO-1190. The order prohibited Betts from “threatening to commit
or committing acts of domestic or family violence, stalking or sex offenses
against [A.R.] and the following designated family or household members …
[H.B.] ….” State’s Ex. A. The order further ordered Betts “to stay away from
the following place(s) that is/are frequented by [A.R.] and/or [A.R.’s] family or
household members: … Martin Luther King Center.” Id. The sheriff served
the order by hanging “a copy on door” at 3530 Northside Boulevard,
Apartment 4, Betts’s last known address, on October 8, 2014. State’s Ex. B.
[3] H.B. had been attending after-school care at the Martin Luther King Center
since before the protective order was entered. A.R. provided a copy of the
protective order and Betts’s picture to the center. In September 2015, Betts
called A.R. and asked her if he could see H.B. for her birthday. A.R. discussed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 2 of 6 the protective order with Betts, and Betts knew that he was not permitted to see
his daughter pursuant to the order.
[4] On April 28, 2016, Betts went to the Martin Luther King Center during the
after-school hours. The director of the center, Josephine Merriweather, asked
Betts if she could help him. She noticed that Betts kept staring at the children
through the window separating the lobby area from the gym where the children
were playing. Betts told Merriweather that he was interested in lifting weights
and perhaps a membership to the center. During their conversation, Betts kept
looking through the window toward the children. Merriweather got a “funny
feeling” and went to find her file containing a copy of the protective order and
Betts’s picture. Tr. at 33. Merriweather then asked Betts if he was H.B.’s
father. Betts responded, “Yes,” and stated, “I just want to see my daughter.”
Id. Merriweather told Betts to leave or she would call the police. Betts exited
the property.
[5] Thereafter, the State charged Betts with one count of class A misdemeanor
invasion of privacy for violating the protective order. Following a bench trial,
the trial court found Betts guilty as charged and sentenced him to ninety days in
the St. Joseph County Jail. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [6] Betts contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 3 of 6 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the
trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will
not disturb it. Id. at 500.
[7] To convict Betts of invasion of privacy, the State was required to prove that he
knowingly or intentionally violated a protective order to prevent domestic or
family violence issued under Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-5. See Ind. Code §
35-46-1-15.1(1). A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he engages
in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. Ind. Code
§ 35-41-2-2(a). Betts contends that there is insufficient evidence that he
knowingly violated the protective order because the State failed to prove that he
had knowledge of the existence of the protective order prohibiting him from
going to the Martin Luther King Center, and further that there was no evidence
that his daughter, H.B., was present at the Martin Luther King Center on the
day in question. We find the first argument unpersuasive and the second
argument irrelevant.
[8] Regarding his first argument, the protective order issued here specifically
provided that, in addition to staying away from A.R. and H.B., Betts was
“ordered to stay away from the following place(s) that is/are frequented by
[A.R.] and/or [A.R.’s] family or household members: … Martin Luther King
Center.” State’s Ex. A. The State presented evidence that the protective order
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 4 of 6 was served by copy service at Betts’s known legal address at the time it was
issued.1 The trial court did not find credible Betts’s assertions that he was
unaware of the protective order because he had moved from the Northside
Boulevard address just prior to the issuance of the order. Indeed, the record
indicates that the Northside Boulevard address is currently still listed by the
Bureau of Motor Vehicles as Betts’s legal address. Further, A.R. testified that
she spoke with Betts in 2015, that they discussed the protective order, and that
Betts was aware of its existence. Again, the trial court did not find credible
Betts’s claims that he had no idea he was prohibited from going to the Martin
Luther King Center or even that his daughter attended after-school care at the
facility. His evasive behavior while at the center undermines the credibility of
his testimony and supports the trial court’s determination. The State presented
substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could infer
that Betts had knowledge of the protective order and its terms.
[9] Moreover, contrary to Betts’s argument, the State was not required to prove
that H.B. was present at the center when he went there. The protective order
did not require that H.B. be present at the Martin Luther King Center for Betts
to be in violation of the order by going to the center, as he admits to doing.
Rather the protective order specifically states that Betts must stay away from the
center as a place “frequented by” H.B. Id. Thus, any alleged lack of proof that
1 Betts complains that the State failed to prove that the sheriff complied with Indiana Trial Rule 4.1(B) and also mailed a copy of the protective order. We note that Indiana courts have held that proper service of an ex parte order is not required to prove that a respondent has knowledge of the order. Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809-11 (Ind. 2011).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 5 of 6 H.B. was present at the center when Betts went there is immaterial. Regardless,
in addition to Betts’s admission that he went to the center on the afternoon in
question, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact
could infer that H.B. was present at that time. The record indicates that H.B.
had been attending the Martin Luther King Center for after-school care since
before the protective order was issued and that Betts specifically went to the
center during after-school hours. Betts himself testified that while he was at the
center, he saw a child whom he believed to be his daughter waving to him
through the lobby window.
[10] We reject Betts’s invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness
credibility. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Betts’s conviction
for invasion of privacy. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.
[11] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1705-CR-1154 | October 26, 2017 Page 6 of 6