Jordan v. State

• Decision Date: 13 June 2017
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1608-CR-1730
• Citation: 77 N.E.3d 1271
• Parties: Thomas JORDAN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

77 N.E.3d 1271

Thomas JORDAN, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1608-CR-1730

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

June 13, 2017

Attorney for Appellant : Matthew D. Anglemeyer, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee : Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Thomas Jordan appeals his conviction for invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Jordan presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Jordan and Myra Price met in 2009, and they had a child together out of wedlock, Z.P. Jordan established his paternity, and, in July 2015, he and Price submitted to the trial court an agreed entry as to parenting time ("parenting time order"). On April 11, 2016, Price petitioned the trial court for an ex parte order for protection ("protective order") against Jordan, and the court granted the order the same day. The protective order "enjoined" Jordan from: "threatening to commit or committing acts of domestic or family violence, [or] stalking or a sex offense against [Price]"; and harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting, or directly or indirectly communicating with Price. State's Ex. 1. The protective order also stated that it was "not intended to interfere with any parenting time/child visitation orders issued by any other court." Id.

[3] On April 12, an officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") went to Jordan's house and told him that Price had obtained the protective order against him, that he would "no longer be permitted to contact" Price, and that he would receive the protective order by mail. Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. Nonetheless, on April 13, Jordan called Price's telephone number and left her a voicemail message. In that four-minute-long message, Jordan acknowledged that he had been notified about the protective order; offered Price a "one time only deal" to renegotiate the parenting time agreement to involve third parties in custody exchanges; told her that, "against [his] better judgment," he would let her choose the third party, but that it could not be a boyfriend; told her to "take some time and be a grownup"; and told her that if she did not agree, it was going to be "one nasty battle" and that the judge was going to "hear everything." State's Ex. 2.

[4] The State charged Jordan with two counts of invasion of privacy, as Class A misdemeanors, for violation of the protective order.¹ Following a bench trial, the trial court found Jordan guilty of one count, but not guilty of the second count. The court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Jordan accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Jordan contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Our standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction is as follows:

First, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Second, we only consider the evidence supporting the [judgment] and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling.

Willis v. State , 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066-67 (Ind. 2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

[6] To prove invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to show that Jordan knowingly or intentionally violated the protective order against him. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1 (2015). Jordan first contends that the voicemail "did not violate the ex parte protective order because what he said in it only related to parenting time and child custody with his daughter[.]" Appellant's Br. at 15. He maintains that, in his voicemail, he "sought to accomplish only one goal: to respect and acquiesce to Price's desire for a protective order against him while still maintaining his right to see his child." Id. at 16-17. Jordan also contends that his conviction cannot stand because he had insufficient notice of the terms of the protective order. We address each contention in turn.

[7] Initially, we note that this appeal illustrates the conflict inherent in a court order prohibiting contact between parents who have to communicate about parenting time issues. As Jordan points out, the trial court explicitly included in the protective order a provision stating that it was "not intended to interfere with any parenting time/child visitation orders[.]"² State's Ex. 1. Thus, Jordan maintains, and we agree, that the protective order permitted him to contact Price regarding parenting time issues. But the evidence supports the trial court's finding that Jordan's voicemail exceeded the scope of what was necessary to communicate with Price about parenting time.

[8] Jordan's voicemail message was not merely an attempt to arrange his next visit with Z.P. or discuss issues related to the parenting time agreement. Rather, Jordan used aggressive words, including ad hominem attacks on Price, in the course of asking her to renegotiate the parenting time agreement. In particular, Jordan: offered Price a "one time only deal"; said that if they tried to coparent without a third party to handle custody exchanges "it's gonna get ugly"; said that the third parties "can't be boyfriends and all that other sh**"; accused Price of "want[ing] to be the boss of everybody"; told her to "take some time and be a grownup"; said that if she did not agree, there would be "one nasty battle" that would "really tear [her] ass up in court" and he would tell the judge "everything that has went on [sic]." State's Ex. 2. We reject Jordan's contention that "what he said in [the voicemail] only related to parenting time and child custody[.]" Appellant's Br. at 15. Jordan's right...