Galateanu v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-1842 |
| Parties | Michael Andrei Galateanu, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as binding precedent, but it may be cited for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, The Honorable Michael S Bergerson, Senior Judge, Trial Court Cause No 45G02-2102-CM-586
Attorney for Appellant R. Brian Woodward Appellate Public Defender Office of the Lake County Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana.
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
[¶1] Michael Andrei Galateanu appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor.[1] We affirm.
[¶2] Galateanu raises two issues, which we restate as follows:
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On December 15, 2020, the Hammond Police Department received a 9-1-1 call, and officers were dispatched to the home of N.M. When the officers arrived, they heard N.M. screaming as she "thr[ew] bags of clothing in the front of her residence." Tr. at 57. N.M. told the officers that Galateanu was in the basement of the house and did not belong there. The officers contacted dispatch and learned that there was a no contact order in effect protecting N.M. from Galateanu. The officers entered the home and went into the basement. In the basement, the officers saw and identified Galateanu and then arrested him. As the officers walked Galateanu back to their police car, Galateanu "acknowledged that he had a no contact order [against him with respect to] this residence" in which N.M. lived. Id. at 59.
[¶4] A no contact order had been entered by the Lake Superior Court on December 19, 2019, in a criminal case under cause number 45G01-1911-F6-002307. The respondent named in the no contact order was Galateanu, and the petitioner was N.M. The no contact order provided that Galateanu was to have no contact with N.M. either "in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or in any other way, directly or indirectly, except through an attorney of record, while released from custody pending trial . . ." State's Ex. 2A, Ex. at 5. The Order further prohibited Galateanu from visiting any place where he knew N.M. to be located. The Order was to remain in effect until the case had been tried or until Galateanu had been sentenced if found guilty. By his signature on the document, Galateanu acknowledged having received a copy of the no contact order.
[¶6] Galateanu objected to the amended information, and the State informed the trial court that the only difference between the initial information and the proposed amendment is that the former Tr. at 3-4. The State noted that Id. at 8. The State further noted that Galateanu had signed the no contact order, "so he would have received a copy of it." Id. at 9.
[¶7] At that point in the proceedings, the following exchange occurred:
[¶8] During trial, Galateanu offered into evidence his Exhibit A, a document purporting to be a "request to dismiss a protective order" in a proceeding in cause number 45D05-1911-PO-1549, a civil case. Supp. Ex. at 2; Tr. at 69. The State objected to admission of the exhibit as irrelevant, and the trial court sustained the objection. Galateanu made an offer of proof regarding the excluded Exhibit A. The jury found Galateanu guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to one year in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Amendment of Charging Information
[¶9] Galateanu alleges the trial court erred when it allowed the State to amend the charging information on the morning of trial but before the trial began. "We review a trial court's decision on whether to permit an amendment to a charging information for an abuse of discretion." State v. McFarland, 134 N.E.3d 1027, 1030 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied.
[¶10] Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-5 governs amendments to a charging information. "In general, Indiana Code [S]ection 35-34-1-5(b) permits the State to amend a charging information even in matters of substance at any time before the commencement of trial so long as the amendment does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights." Gaby v. State, 949 N.E.2d 870, 874 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). The substantial rights of a defendant include a right to sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the charge. Id. "Ultimately, the question is whether the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to prepare for and defend against the charges." Id. (quotation and citation omitted).
"The requirement of an 'opportunity to be heard' is satisfied when the defendant is given adequate time to object and request a hearing after proper notice." [Davis v. State, 714 N.E.2d 717, 721 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999)] (quoting Davis v. State, 580 N.E.2d 326, 328 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991)). To preserve this issue for appeal, the defendant must object to the request to amend, and if the objection is overruled, must request a continuance to prepare a new defense strategy. Haak v. State, 695 N.E.2d 944, 953 n.5 (Ind. 1998).
Park v. State, 752 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001); see also Wilson v. State, 931 N.E.2d 914, 918 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (), trans. denied.[2]
[¶11] Here, Galateanu objected to the amendment of the information, and the trial court asked Galateanu if he wanted a continuance so that he would have "additional time to investigate or prepare a defense for the amended information" if the motion to amend the information was granted. Tr. at 11. Galateanu specifically stated that he did not want a continuance. He has therefore waived the issue on appeal.[3] See, e.g., Wilson, 931 N.E.2d at 918.
[¶12] Galateanu challenges the trial court ruling denying his request to admit into evidence his proposed Exhibit A. The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion. E.g., Collins v State, 966 N.E.2d 96, 104 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law. Id. We consider any conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling and any uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Id.
[¶13] The trial court denied Galateanu's motion to admit his proposed Exhibit A, which was a document purporting to be a "Request for Dismissal" of a protective order action pending in a civil court. Supp. Ex. at 2. The court denied the motion on the ground that the document was not relevant to the no contact order issued in the criminal case, which was the order Galateanu was accused of violating. Galateanu maintains that the excluded document was relevant to his mens rea in this case. To prove Galateanu committed invasion of privacy as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to show that he "knowingly or intentionally violate[d]… a no contact order issued as a condition of pretrial release." I.C. § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(5).
[¶14] The trial court correctly determined that Galateanu's proposed Exhibit A had no relevance to his intent to violate the no contact order pending in a criminal case. "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any...
To continue reading
Request your trial