Shelly M. Phipps v. State of Indiana

I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ decision to reverse Phipps’s conviction for invasion of privacy as a Level 6 felony. The majority argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Phipps intended to indirectly communicate with KG. My colleagues correctly point out that the State was required to prove that Phipps: (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) violated an ex parte protective order; and (3) that she had a prior conviction for invasion of privacy. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1. However, I believe there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that…