Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM F. THOMS, JR. Thoms & Thoms Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ARTHUR THADDEUS PERRY Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DONALD DIXON, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0612-CR-1160

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Richard Sallee, Senior Judge Cause No. 49G21-0610-CM-198628

July 12, 2007 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Donald Dixon ("Dixon") appeals his conviction for invasion of privacy as a Class A misdemeanor. Dixon contends that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony and because there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to reasonably find Dixon guilty of invasion of privacy, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On July 17, 2006, a trial court issued an ex parte order for protection against Dixon on behalf of his wife, Demetrice Bruno ("Bruno"), which ordered Dixon to "stay away from the residence" of Bruno. State's Ex. 1, p. 3. On October 13, 2006, police officer Alfredo Gomez ("Officer Gomez") was dispatched to Bruno's residence at 12:22 a.m., where he found Dixon and Bruno engaged in a verbal dispute. Officer Gomez performed a warrant check on both parties and discovered that Bruno had filed a protective order against Dixon but that Dixon had not yet been served with the order. Bruno presented a copy of the protective order to Officer Gomez and told him that she had previously given Dixon a hard copy of the order. Officer Gomez then advised Dixon that he had been served with a protective order and that he was not to come back to Bruno's residence. Officer Gomez did not arrest Dixon. That same day, at 9:54 p.m., Officer Gomez was called back to the same address, where Dixon and Bruno were again arguing in the kitchen. Officer Gomez arrested Dixon, who continued to act boisterously after being handcuffed. 2

The State charged Dixon with Count I, Invasion of Privacy as a Class A misdemeanor; 1 Count II, Criminal Trespass as a Class A misdemeanor; 2 and Count III, Disorderly Conduct as a Class B misdemeanor. 3 During a bench trial, Officer Gomez testified: Q. So you confirmed that there was a Protective Order in place. What happened after you found out there was a Protective Order in place [?] Miss Bruno showed me a hard copy of the Protective Order against Mr. Dixon. I then confirmed the information with our Communication saying that there was one on file but it has not been served. And what did you do after you found out that it hadn't been served? Once I asked Miss Bruno if Mr. Dixon had received a hard copy. She advised ---DEFENSE: Objection Your Honor, hearsay. COURT: STATE: Sustained It's not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted Your Honor. It's being offered to show what the Police Officer did in the course of his investigation. Why he did what he did. Right. Overruled then. It will go to the merits of the case. Correct[.]

A.

Q. A.

COURT: STATE: COURT: STATE:
1

Ind. Code

Download Donald Dixon v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law