MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before
Feb 28 2018, 11:28 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the and Tax Court
case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Grant Elam, February 28, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1708-CR-1952
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court, Criminal Division 17
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina Klineman,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1702-CM-6298
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1952 | February 28, 2018 Page 1 of 5
[1] Grant Elam appeals his two convictions for invasion of privacy for violating an
ex parte protective order that his mother obtained. He argues that there is
insufficient evidence to show that he was properly served with the protective
order and that, as to one of his convictions, he called or texted his mother. We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Elam is an Afghanistan combat veteran who suffers from schizophrenia,
paranoia, and delusions. One of those delusions is that he needs to kill his
mother, Dorian, to protect her from demons.
[3] On February 1, 2017, Dorian obtained a protective order against Elam after he
threatened to kill her. As part of the order, Elam was “prohibited from
harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting, or directly or indirectly
communicating with” Dorian. Ex. 5. He was also ordered to stay away from
Dorian’s residence. The order remained in effect until April 1, 2017.
[4] The day after the protective order was issued, Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy
James Dean personally served Elam with a copy of it. Deputy Dean verified
that he was speaking to Elam, read the terms and conditions of the order to
Elam, and asked if Elam had any questions. Tr. Vol. II p. 31. Deputy Dean
usually has the individual being served sign the back of the order to show that
he received a copy. It was also customary for there to be a stamp from the
sheriff’s office on the back of the order. The copy of the order admitted at trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1952 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 5
did not have either Elam’s signature or a stamp from the sheriff’s office. See Ex.
5.
[5] One week after being served with the protective order, Elam called Dorian and
left a voicemail. Tr. Vol. II pp. 35-36 (Elam admitting that, “I called my mom
from the VA phone on February Ninth (9th) . . . .”); Ex. 1 (audio recording of
the voicemail). Two days later, on February 11, Elam called and texted Dorian
multiple times. Dorian contacted the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department to report Elam’s behavior, and Officer Tiffany Rand was
dispatched. While Officer Rand was at Dorian’s house, Elam called Dorian
five more times.
[6] The State charged Elam with two counts of invasion of privacy for violating
Indiana Code section 35-46-1-15.1(a)(2). The charges related to his actions on
February 9 and 11, respectively. At the bench trial, Dorian explained that Elam
has had the same phone number since he was in high school and that she has
that number saved in her phone as “Grant Elam.” Elam testified that he did
not recognize Deputy Dean but stated, “I have the original protective order
that, uh, was served to me.” Tr. Vol. II p. 36. Elam also admitted that he
called Dorian on February 9. However, he denied calling or texting her on
February 11. The court found Elam guilty on both counts.
[7] Elam now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1952 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[8] Elam contends that there is insufficient evidence to show that he was properly
served with the protective order and that he was the one who called and texted
Dorian on February 11.1 When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, “we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility;
instead we consider only the evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting
the verdict.” Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We will affirm if
there is probative evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have
found the defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict a
defendant of invasion of privacy under Indiana Code section 35-46-1-15.1(a)(2),
the State must prove that the defendant “knowingly or intentionally” violated
an ex parte protective order.
[9] It is unclear if Elam is arguing that he was not served with the protective order
or if his argument is that he was served but service was “not proper.”
Regarding the service argument, Deputy Dean testified that on February 2 he
personally served Elam with the protective order, read the order to Elam, and
asked Elam if he had any questions. And Elam, himself, stated that he had a
copy of the order. This is sufficient to prove that Elam was served with a copy
of the order. To the extent that Elam argues service was “not proper,” the
1
In the latter argument, Elam does not distinguish between the conviction relating to February 9 and the
conviction relating to February 11. However, as already noted, Elam, himself, testified at trial that he called
Dorian on February 9. Tr. Vol. II pp. 35-36 (“I called my mom from the VA phone on February Ninth (9th)
. . . .”). This alone is sufficient to support his conviction relating to February 9.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1952 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 5
invasion-of-privacy statute does “not require actual service of a protective order
for a conviction.” Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 812 (Ind. 2011). All that is
required is actual notice of the order, because the defendant must knowingly or
intentionally violate the order. Id. By acknowledging that he was served, Elam
also admitted to having actual knowledge of the order.
[10] Elam’s second argument is that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he was
the one who called and texted on February 11. Dorian and Officer Rand both
testified that “Grant Elam” called Dorian’s cell phone at least five times on
February 11. Dorian explained that Elam has had the same phone number
since high school and that number was saved in her contacts as “Grant Elam.”
Elam’s challenge to the conviction for his actions on February 11 is merely a
request for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Leonard,
80 N.E.3d at 882.
[11] Affirmed.
May, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1708-CR-1952 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 5