MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 20 2018, 7:35 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
Anna Onaitis Holden Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Roberts, December 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1210
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina R.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Klineman, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1802-F6-4431
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Jeremy Roberts (“Roberts”) appeals his conviction for Invasion of Privacy, as a
Level 6 felony.1 He presents a single issue for review: whether the trial court
abused its discretion by admitting evidence in violation of Indiana Rule of
Evidence 404(b). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December of 2017, Roberts was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail (“the
Jail”) awaiting trial on a charge related to his conduct involving an ex-
girlfriend, J.W. On December 5, 2017, a no-contact order was issued,
prohibiting Roberts from contacting J.W. Thereafter, J.W. noticed that there
were repetitive calls from the Jail to her cell phone and to her twelve-year-old
son’s cell phone. On December 31, 2017, J.W. answered a call placed to her
son’s cell phone and recognized Roberts’s voice. The caller stated that he didn’t
know who he was calling. After J.W. ended the call, “less than one minute
later,” another call from the Jail was made to that same number. (Tr. Vol. II,
pg. 81.)
[3] On February 6, 2018, the State charged Roberts with Invasion of Privacy,
related to the events of December 31, 2017. At his jury trial conducted on April
1
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1. The offense was elevated to a Level 6 felony because of a prior unrelated
conviction for Invasion of Privacy.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 6
19, 2018, the State introduced, over Roberts’s Trial Rule 404(b) objection, a call
log from the Jail. The log indicated that thirty-five calls to J.W.’s cell phone
and her son’s cell phone had been made from the Jail over a one-month period.
The jury found Roberts guilty as charged and he was sentenced to 910 days
imprisonment. He now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] At his trial, Roberts conceded that J.W. had received a call from the Jail but
pursued a defense of mistake. In his opening statement, defense counsel argued
that Roberts thought he was calling J.W.’s son, as opposed to J.W., and that
“one phone call” had placed Roberts’s “liberty at stake.” (Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 69-
70.) J.W.’s testimony and the Jail logs indicated that numerous calls had been
placed. Roberts now argues that the admission of the Jail logs was both
irrelevant and prejudicial evidence admitted in violation of Rule 404(b).
[5] Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other crimes,
wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to
show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other
purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident...” The list of permissible purposes
is illustrative but not exhaustive. Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind.
1997). “The well-established rationale behind Evidence Rule 404(b) is that the
jury is precluded from making the ‘forbidden inference’ that the defendant had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 6
a criminal propensity and therefore engaged in the charged conduct.”
Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 233 (Ind. 1997).
[6] In assessing the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence, a trial court must (1)
determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a
matter at issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged act
and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect
pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 403. Vermillion v. State, 978 N.E.2d 459,
463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). We review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of
discretion and will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Nicholson v.
State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. 2012).
[7] At trial, the State argued that the call log evidenced a “continuing criminal act”
rather than acts extrinsic to the charged offense, and that the call log was
relevant to show the absence of mistake. (Tr. Vol. II., pg. 107.) In Wages v.
State, 863 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied, we discussed the
admissibility of evidence “intrinsic” to a charged offense:
[Rule 404(b)] does not bar evidence of uncharged acts that are
“intrinsic” to the charged offense. Lee v. State, 689 N.E.2d 435,
439 (Ind. 1997). “Other acts are ‘intrinsic’ if they occur at the
same time and under the same circumstances as the crimes
charged.” Holden v. State, 815 N.E.2d 1049, 1054 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004), trans. denied. By contrast, the paradigm of inadmissible
evidence under Rule 404(b) is a crime committed on another day
in another place, evidence whose only apparent purpose is to
prove the defendant is a person who commits crimes. Howard v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 6
State, 761 N.E.2d 449, 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied
(quoting Swanson v. State, 666 N.E.2d 397, 398 (Ind. 1996)).
[8] The call log does not fit precisely into this framework. The listed calls were
made on several different dates, some on December 31, 2017, some in close
proximity to that date, and some more remotely. Some calls were initiated with
a PIN number not issued to Roberts.2 Nevertheless, the call log was also
proffered under the absence of mistake exception. Roberts urged the jury to
believe that he had placed a single call and reached J.W. by mistake. The call
log was relevant to contradict that impression. And, although Roberts insists he
was unduly prejudiced by the call log admission, J.W. had already testified –
without objection from Roberts – that she had noticed numerous calls from the
Jail to hers and her son’s phones and she knew no one else at the Jail. Thus,
the evidence was relevant to a purpose other than Roberts’s propensity to
commit crime and the trial court could properly find that its probative value
outweighed its prejudicial impact.
Conclusion
[9] Roberts did not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in the
admission of evidence.
2
The State presented testimony that one inmate could share his PIN number with another inmate and that
inmates frequently did so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[10] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1210 | December 20, 2018 Page 6 of 6
Jeremy Roberts v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion