Legal Opinion · Dissent

Winebrenner v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 1, 2003No. 57A03-0212-CR-411Published

1DissentSullivan, Judge

Although he acknowledged being in the presence of Heather, Winebrenner did not, as stated by the majority, “[acknowledge] to Officer Keger that he was violating the protective order.” Slip op. at 6. To the contrary, Winebrenner stated that Heather was simply in the vehicle driven by Ms. Chester when it arrived to assist Wine-brenner. There is no reasonable inference that the contact between Winebrenner and Heather was such as to constitute abuse, harassment, or disturbing of Heather’s peace.

One may speculate that under the circumstances, Heather was a willing participant in the contact with…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gordon v. GordonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API