Christopher Betts v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 08 2017, 10:32 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Troy D. Warner Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Betts, December 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1705-CR-1234
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth Hardtke,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D07-1609-CM-4659
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Christopher Betts appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor invasion of
privacy.
Issue
[1] The sole issue before us is whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain Betts’s
conviction.
Facts
[2] Betts and A.R. dated for ten years and have a daughter together. On October 6,
2014, the St. Joseph Circuit Court issued a protective order that: (1) enjoined
Betts from threatening to commit or committing acts of domestic or family
violence against A.R. or her children; and (2) prohibited him from harassing,
annoying, telephoning, contacting, or communicating directly or indirectly with
A.R. The protective order prohibited Betts from going to A.R.’s workplace, her
children’s schools and bus stops, and the site of their daughter’s after-school
program. On October 7, 2014, the protective order was served upon Betts when
a sheriff hung it upon the door of his residence in South Bend. The St. Joseph
Circuit Court ordered that the protective order would expire on October 6,
2016.
[3] On September 4, 2015, Betts telephoned A.R. to speak with their daughter.
A.R. and Betts discussed the protective order. On March 22, 2016, A.R. was in
the parking lot of her St. Joseph County workplace. From a distance of
approximately two hundred feet and across the street, Betts shouted to A.R.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 2 of 6
“over and over again,” using his nickname for her, and asking to borrow her
car. Tr. p. 19. A.R. “rushed” into her workplace. Id. at 26.
[4] On September 19, 2016, the State charged Betts with class A misdemeanor
invasion of privacy.1 A.R. testified to the foregoing facts at a bench trial. In the
following colloquy, she testified that, as of September 4, 2015, Betts knew that
the protective order was in effect:
Q. [A.R.], in that September of 2015 conversation, did you
discuss the protective order with Mr. Betts?
A: Yes.
Q: What did Mr. Betts say in regards to that protective order?
A: Well he knew we weren’t supposed to have contact, but he
made contact, because it was [Betts’s and his daughter’s] birthday
and he had asked that he could see her for her birthday.
Q: And what did he say specifically in regards to that
protective order?
A: We discussed the protective order, that there was one in
place. He knew there was one in place.
1
The State charged Betts with two separate violations of the same protective order. The causes, 71D04-1610-
CM-005039 and 71D07-1609-CM-004659, were consolidated for purposes of trial. This appeal pertains only
to cause 71D07-1609-CM-004659, the instant workplace violation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 3 of 6
Id. at 25. Additionally, the State presented a BMV driving record that indicated
that Betts resided at 3550 Northside Boulevard, Apartment A4, South Bend, at
the time that notice of the protective order was served at that address. Betts
testified that, on the date in question, he just happened to be across the street
from A.R.’s workplace, but he “didn’t know she worked there”; that he saw
A.R., but did not speak to her; and that he was unaware of the protective order.
Id. at 47.
[5] The trial court found Betts guilty and sentenced him to 180 days executed on
71D07-1609-CM-004659.2 Betts now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Betts argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only
the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane
v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility
or reweigh evidence. Id. We affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it
to support the verdict. Id. at 147. The uncorroborated testimony of one witness
2
The trial court also found Betts guilty and sentenced him to 90 days executed on 71D04-1610-CM-005039.
The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 4 of 6
can be sufficient to sustain a conviction, even when that witness is the victim.
Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012).
[7] To prove that Betts committed class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, the
State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally violated the
October 6, 2014, protective order, which was issued under Indiana Code
Chapter 34-26-5 to prevent domestic or family violence against A.R.
[8] Betts contends that: (1) he was never served with the protective order; (2) the
protective order did not require him to maintain a specific distance from A.R.;
(3) he was near A.R.’s workplace for an innocent reason and “[A.R.] stumbled
on [him] on her way to work,” Appellant’s Br. p. 9; and that he, therefore, did
not knowingly or intentionally violate the protective order.
[9] Here, the State presented evidence that the protective order was served at
Betts’s residence in October 2014, along with A.R.’s testimony that Betts was
aware of the protective order long before the alleged workplace violation in
March 2016, when Betts appeared near A.R.’s workplace, shouted at her
repeatedly, and asked to use her car. Based on the foregoing evidence and
reasonable inferences from it, the trial judge could reasonably conclude that
Betts knowingly and intentionally violated the protective order issued under
Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-5. Betts’s arguments on appeal amount to requests
that we judge A.R.’s credibility, which we will not do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at
146. The trial court weighed the witnesses’ conflicting testimony and found
Betts guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A.R.’s testimony is sufficient to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 5 of 6
support Betts’s conviction. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135 (holding a conviction
may be based upon a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony).
Conclusion
[10] Sufficient evidence exists to sustain Betts’s conviction. We affirm.
Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 6 of 6