Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Kristina L. Lynn

Wabash, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Steven J. Hosler

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Edward Neil Schafer,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 10, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1111

Appeal from the Wabash Superior 

Court

The Honorable Amy C. Cornell, 

Judge

The Honorable Karen A. Springer, 

Judge Pro Tempore

Trial Court Cause No.

85D01-1706-CM-697

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] Edward Neil Schafer appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion 

of privacy. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On August 23, 2016, the Wabash Superior Court entered an order for 

protection (the PO) against Schafer and in favor of Patrick E. Dingess, as well 

as Dingess’s two sons. Dingess began dating Schafer’s ex-wife, April Ceslick, 

in May 2016 and sought the PO based on allegations that Schafer had stalked 

him. The PO, which was effective until August 23, 2018, enjoined Schafer 

from, among other things, stalking, harassing, or contacting Dingess and 

ordered Schafer to stay away from Dingess’s residence and place of 

employment.

[4] On the evening of June 6, 2017, Schafer spoke with his father (Ed) and Jordan 

Wells. He was upset, believing that Dingess had abused one of Schafer and 

Ceslick’s daughters. Schafer asked Ed and Wells to go to the local police 

department to obtain a copy of a statement he believed Ceslick had given to 

police earlier that day. Schafer then angrily left Ed’s home, grabbed a baseball 

bat, and said, “I’m gonna kill this mother f**ker.” Transcript Vol. II at 165. 

Prior to this, Schafer had accurately described to Wells where Dingess currently 

lived, which was different than the (former) address listed on the PO.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 6

[5] After Schafer left, Wells drove Ed to the Manchester Police Department where, 

around 9:30 p.m., they spoke to Officer Parker Stauffer and asked to see the 

statement. Wells warned Officer Stauffer that “[Schafer] was p*ssed about 

something and that it was concerning [Dingess] and they might want to be 

cognizant of it.” Id. at 166-67. Ed’s demeanor at the police department also 

worried Officer Stauffer. Officer Stauffer could not locate the information the 

men desired, and they left after Officer Stauffer spoke with them for a period of 

time and became “comfortable that Ed wasn’t going to take action that night 

against Mr. Dingess.” Id. at 185. Officer Stauffer encouraged Wells to attempt 

to calm Schafer down and to contact police if any potential conflicts arose.

[6] Around 11:18 that same night, Officer Stauffer and other officers were 

dispatched to Dingess’s home, where he lived with his young adult sons, 

Patrick and Caleb. Dingess was not home but his sons were. Patrick called 911

to report that Schafer was currently violating the PO by driving through the 

alley in front of their house, watching them, and yelling at them.

[7] The events leading up to the 911 call, stated in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, are as follows. The Dingess home can be accessed only by a gravel 

alley that has three exit points. After dark, Ceslick drove to the home to visit 

Dingess, who would soon be home from work. She observed the headlights of 

another vehicle facing her in the alley and paused for it to pass but then realized 

that the vehicle was stopped in front of the Dingess home. She slowly moved 

forward and then the other vehicle moved toward her. As they pulled along 

side each other, Ceslick realized that Schafer was driving the other vehicle. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 6

They made eye contact and then each sped away in opposite directions through 

the alley. Ceslick then immediately called Dingess.

[8] In the meantime, Caleb and Patrick had heard “commotion outside” the home, 

including loud music and vehicles in the alley. Id. at 58-59. They eventually 

stepped outside to investigate and saw as Ceslick sped away. They then called 

Ceslick, who told them that Schafer had been at the house and to call the 

police. Ceslick proceeded to drive around the block a few times, and Patrick 

observed her being followed by Schafer. Patrick called 911, as Caleb spoke over 

the phone with Dingess. Both had baseball bats for their protection. Schafer 

pulled into the alley and stopped down from the home during the 911 call and 

yelled at Caleb and Patrick.

[9] After about forty-five seconds, Schafer drove away as police officers arrived 

from another end of the alley. Officers located Schafer minutes later in a 

nearby park. He was outside of his vehicle holding a baseball bat. Schafer 

“seemed agitated” and claimed that he was just playing some baseball. Id. at 

122. Officer Stauffer eventually arrived at the park and could not get Schafer 

calmed down enough to take a statement, so he told Schafer to leave because 

the park was closed. 

[10] On June 13, 2017, the State charged Schafer with invasion of privacy, a Class A 

misdemeanor. Following a two-day trial, the jury found him guilty on April 10, 

2019, and he was later sentenced to 365 days in the Wabash County Jail. 

Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[11] On appeal, Schafer does not contest the fact that the PO was in effect on the 

day in question or that he was aware of its existence. Schafer claims only that 

the State failed to sufficiently establish that he knowingly or intentionally 

violated the PO.1 Specifically, he contends that his contact that evening was 

with Ceslick, who was not covered by the PO, and that there was no credible, 

reliable evidence that he drove down the alley near the Dingess home.

[12] Schafer’s argument ignores our well-established standard of review. As our 

Supreme Court has stated: “Convictions should be affirmed unless no 

reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” T.H. v. State, 92 N.E.3d 624, 626 (Ind. 2018). Thus, when 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must consider only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction, and we 

should not assess witness credibility or weigh the evidence. See Moore v. State, 

27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). The trier of fact is entitled to determine which 

version of the incident to credit by resolving conflicts in the evidence and 

deciding which witnesses to believe or disbelieve. See Murray v. State, 761 

N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002); Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007), trans. denied.

1 Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(2), a person who knowingly or intentionally violates an ex parte 

protective order issued under I.C. 34-26-5 (like the PO in this case) commits invasion of privacy, a Class A 

misdemeanor. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 6 of 6

[13] The evidence favorable to the verdict establishes that Schafer was angry after 

learning of potential allegations involving his daughter and Dingess. He 

discussed the matter with his father and Wells, asked them to obtain 

information from the police department, and then left with a baseball bat and 

insinuated that he was going to take matters into his own hands. Schafer’s 

actions prompted Wells to warn Officer Stauffer of Schafer’s rage. 

[14] Shortly thereafter, Schafer drove into the alley and parked in front of the 

Dingess home, where he knew Dingess to live. Schafer drove off when Ceslick 

discovered him but then continued to follow her around the block multiple 

times as she frantically spoke with Dingess and then Patrick on the phone. 

Thereafter, Patrick called 911, and while he spoke with the dispatcher, Schafer 

returned to the alley, stopped short of the Dingess home, and yelled at Patrick 

and Caleb. Shafer left just before the police arrived. He then drove to a nearby 

park, where he was found minutes later holding a baseball bat outside his 

vehicle around 11:20 p.m.

[15] The evidence amply supports Schafer’s conviction, and we reject his improper 

invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.

[16] Judgment affirmed.

Robb, J. and Bradford, J., concur.