Christopher H. Boultinghouse, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Gibson Circuit Court The Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 26C01-1804-F4-345
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Charles E. Traylor Kolb Roellgen &
Kirchoff LLP Vincennes, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General
of the Case
Christopher H. Boultinghouse appeals his conviction for
invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a
jury trial. Boultinghouse raises three issues for our review,
which we restate as the following two issues:
1. Whether his conviction for invasion of privacy infringes
on Boultinghouse's fundamental rights under the United
States or Indiana Constitutions.
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support
We hold that the invasion of privacy statute does not
infringe on Boultinghouse's fundamental rights. We also
hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to support
Boultinghouse's conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
and Procedural History
On September 20, 2017, the trial court issued an ex parte
order for protection for Roberta Hook and against
Boultinghouse. According to the ex parte order, Hook had
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Boultinghouse
was her intimate partner, namely, her husband (though the
dissolution of their marriage would become final about one
month later); that he had engaged her in domestic or family
violence; that he represented a credible threat to her
safety; and that the issuance of the order was necessary to
bring about a cessation of that violence or threat of
violence. The ex parte order expressly enjoined Boultinghouse
from committing or threatening to commit further acts of
domestic or family violence, stalking, or a sex offense
against Hook; it prohibited him from harassing, annoying,
telephoning, contacting, "or directly or indirectly
communicating" with Hook; and it ordered Boultinghouse
"to stay away from the residence" of Hook
"even if invited . . . by [Hook] or any other
person." Ex. Vol. at 10-11.
A local law enforcement officer, Jennifer Loesch, served the
ex parte order on Boultinghouse in person and advised him
that, as the order was a temporary order, there would be a
"following court date that [he would] need to be [at]
and speak to the Judge," who would then decide
"whether or not a permanent order is issued." Tr.
Vol. 2 at 185. The court held the hearing to make the ex
parte order a permanent order on September 26. Both Hook and
Boultinghouse attended that hearing, and Boultinghouse
"agree[d] to the issuance of the Order for
Protection." Ex. Vol. at 5. Later that same day, the
court made the order for protection permanent and reiterated
the same findings and advisements from the ex parte order.
The permanent order automatically expires on September 20,
Nonetheless, about two months after the issuance of the
permanent order for protection, Boultinghouse "pretty
much" started living with Hook again. Tr. Vol. 2 at 136,
150. When later asked why she let Boultinghouse back into her
home "even though there was a valid protective
order" that Hook "still fe[lt she] needed,"
Hook responded, "[b]ecause I just did."
Id. at 150.
On March 8, 2018, Boultinghouse and Hook got into an argument
at her residence. During the argument, Boultinghouse was
"yelling and hollering"; he "hit the
wall," which resulted in a hole in the wall; he struck
Hook's minor son; and he "chased [Hook] around"
the kitchen. Id. at 156-57. Hook called 9-1-1, and
Boultinghouse drove away in Hook's car. Officers later
The State charged Boultinghouse with invasion of privacy, as
a Class A misdemeanor, among other offenses. At his ensuing
jury trial, Boultinghouse did not object to the admission of,
or otherwise challenge, either the ex parte order for
protection or the permanent order for protection. Instead,
his defense focused exclusively on the credibility of the
State's witnesses. The jury found Boultinghouse guilty of
invasion of privacy, as a Class A ...