Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 1 of 9

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

Ernest P. Galos 

South Bend, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Koyhan Iesha Smith,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

October 22, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-663

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Keith C. Doi, 

Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

71D08-1908-CM-2913 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 2 of 9

[1] Koyhan Iesha Smith appeals her conviction for invasion of privacy as a class A 

misdemeanor and claims the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. 

We reverse. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 8, 2016, the trial court issued a no contact order under cause 

number 71D01-1608-F5-164 (“Cause No. 164”) which ordered that Smith have 

“no contact” with Terrance Cannon “in person, by telephone or letter, through 

an intermediary, or in any other way, directly or indirectly” and that she not 

visit his address or “wherever [she] knows him[] to be located.” State’s Exhibit 

1-a. The order remained in effect during her executed sentence and until her

probation was terminated. The chronological case summary (“CCS”) for 

Cause No. 164 contains entries dated December 8, 2016, stating Smith had pled 

guilty to battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and the court sentenced her 

to two years with one year suspended and ordered that the non-suspended 

sentence be served on community corrections and that she be placed on 

probation for one year. A petition to revoke was filed in August 2017, status 

hearings were held in October and November 2017 and February and April 

2018, and an evidentiary hearing was held in May 2018. The CCS contains 

entries on June 5, 2018, stating the court had accepted Smith’s admission to the 

violation of her probation and ordered that she continue on probation and 

comply with all of its terms and conditions. The CCS also contains entries 

stating a petition to revoke was filed in July 2018, that a hearing on violation of 

probation scheduled for December 19, 2018, was cancelled because there was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 3 of 9

an agreed resolution, a sentencing hearing was held on January 8, 2019, and 

Smith was continued on probation under the same terms and conditions as 

previously entered. 

[3] On the evening of August 11, 2019, South Bend Police Officers Andrew Ream 

and Matthew Tadevich were dispatched to an address on South Street near 

Four Winds Field in South Bend in response to a report that Smith’s cell phone 

had been lost or stolen. According to Smith’s friend, Smith had an altercation 

with someone “and somehow her phone came up missing,” they used an app 

on the friend’s phone to look for the phone, the app indicated Smith’s phone 

was near Four Winds Field, and “we called the police.” Transcript Volume II 

at 22. When the officers arrived at South Street, they noticed several people 

including Smith and Cannon. The officers indicated they spoke to the parties in 

this group for approximately ten or fifteen minutes. Officer Tadevich went 

across the street to speak to someone at an apartment who may have taken 

Smith’s phone. At some point, Officer Ream learned through a computer 

check of the no contact order, which was brought to the attention of Officer 

Tadevich after he spoke to the person at the apartment across the street. 

According to Officer Tadevich, he had further questions for Smith, he called her 

and learned she was at a Taco Bell on LaSalle Avenue, and he “told her to wait 

for [him] at Taco Bell.” Id. at 19. Officer Tadevich traveled to the restaurant 

and placed Smith under arrest. Officers Ream and Tadevich also saw Cannon

at the Taco Bell location. According to Officer Tadevich, after he placed Smith 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 4 of 9

under arrest, Cannon walked up to him and told him, and was “pretty 

emphatic,” that he was not with Smith’s group. Id. at 21. 

[4] The State charged Smith with invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor

alleging that she knowingly violated the no contact order issued under Cause 

No. 164. At the bench trial, Officer Ream testified that he was dispatched to 

South Street and, when he arrived, he encountered several people including 

Smith and Cannon. He testified he had been wearing a body camera, and a 

recording taken from the camera was played for the court. He stated that the 

person in the recording wearing the white t-shirt was Cannon, the person 

wearing the pink tank top was Smith, and the recording was taken directly 

south of Four Winds Field on South Street. 

[5] Officer Tadevich testified that he was dispatched to South Street near Four 

Winds Field and, when he arrived, there was a group of people and he 

encountered Smith as the complainant. He testified Cannon was there as well. 

When asked if he recalled seeing Cannon “approaching or part of the group or 

how was he involved,” Officer Tadevich testified “[h]e was part of the group 

and I ended up speaking with him on that call as well.” Id. at 17. He also 

indicated Cannon was present at the Taco Bell. When asked “when you were 

arresting Ms. Smith, were you alerted that Mr. Cannon was not with the group, 

that he walked up on them,” Officer Tadevich replied affirmatively. Id. at 20. 

On redirect, when asked how he was alerted that Cannon “walked up on the 

group,” Officer Tadevich answered: “After I had placed Ms. Smith under arrest 

and into my police vehicle, [Cannon] walked back to me to ask me why she 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 5 of 9

was in the vehicle, at which point he said he was at Taco Bell when I arrived 

and then left and then came back to Taco Bell.” Id. On re-cross, when asked 

“[w]asn’t Mr. Cannon pretty emphatic that he wasn’t with the group,” he 

answered “[w]ith regards to Taco Bell, yes.” Id. at 21. 

[6] Laquise Watson indicated she was Smith’s friend, she was with Smith and 

another friend near Four Winds Field, and she was using an app on her phone

to help Smith look for her cell phone. When asked “[w]as [Cannon] with you,” 

Watson testified “[n]o - he was there, but he wasn’t with us” and “he hangs 

over there in that area like, I mean, he whatever I guess called himself helping 

us, but basically he was running over there.” Id. at 22. She testified “[a]ctually 

we called the police.” Id. Watson testified that the police left the scene, “[w]e 

stood around for awhile still looking for the phone,” and then she, Smith, and 

the other friend left and traveled in a car to the Taco Bell. Id. at 23. She 

testified that Cannon did not ride in the car. When asked “[a]t what point did 

Mr. Cannon show up at Taco Bell,” she testified “I don’t know where he came 

from, but he came from like the back side over there by . . . Michigan, he came 

from somewhere over there and walked towards Taco Bell, but that’s already 

after the police was there and everything.” Id. On cross-examination, Watson

testified “when [the police] got out, for some reason she was having a 

conversation, next thing I know she was getting locked up,” “I couldn’t hear 

anything, but I could watching [sic] from the car everything that was going on,” 

and “[s]o I don’t know what was -- are they pulling her or nothing. And then 

after they was talking to her or whatever I seen [Cannon] come from the back 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 6 of 9

and he was like: She wasn’t with me. And I’m like: So she getting locked up for 

you? Basically.” Id. at 24-25. 

[7] Following closing arguments, the court stated “[f]irst off, the whole Taco Bell 

situation is not even relevant at this particular point. That’s not even part of my 

consideration,” “[t]he second point is ignorance of the law is no excuse, that the 

court order was no contact as part [of] her probation,” “[s]he obviously knew 

that was part of her probation. . . .” Id. at 33. The court found Smith guilty

and sentenced her to time served. 

Discussion

[8] Smith argues the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. She argues 

she “had gone to South Street in front of the city’s baseball stadium, a public 

place, in search of the telephone,” “[w]hen police arrived, Terrance Cannon 

was also on the scene,” “[w]hile police spoke with [her] for 10-15 minutes, Mr. 

Cannon meandered about the area and interjected into the investigation,” and 

Watson indicated that Cannon “was not a part of her group” and that he 

“would hang out in the general area.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. She points out

that she complied with the officer’s instruction to wait at Taco Bell for police, 

and that the brief interaction of the parties took place on a public street and the 

evidence did not indicate she had any intent to have any communication or 

contact with Cannon. 

[9] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, 

appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 7 of 9

inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 

2007). It is the factfinder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness 

credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to 

support a conviction. Id. We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The 

evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support 

the verdict. Id. at 147. 

[10] A person who knowingly or intentionally violates a no contact order issued as a 

condition of probation or an executed sentence commits invasion of privacy as 

a class A misdemeanor. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1. A person engages in 

conduct “knowingly” if, when she engages in the conduct, she is aware of a 

high probability that she is doing so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. 

[11] The record reveals the police officers were dispatched to South Street because 

Smith had reported that her cell phone had been stolen. When they arrived, the 

officers saw Smith and Cannon among others at the scene, and at that time they 

did not know of the no contact order. Officer Tadevich eventually left to speak 

with a suspect across the street, and during that time, a computer check 

revealed the existence of the no contact order. Officer Tadevich testified that, 

after he spoke with the suspect, he “called Ms. Smith, because [he] had further 

questions on that call for her,” she told him she was at the Taco Bell on LaSalle 

Avenue, and he “told her to wait for [him] at Taco Bell.” Transcript Volume II 

at 18-19. Watson testified that Cannon “wasn’t with us” and “he hangs over 

there in that area.” Id. at 22. She also testified Cannon did not ride in the car
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 8 of 9

to Taco Bell with her and her group, and that he showed up after the police 

were already there. Cannon told Officer Tadevich, and was “pretty emphatic,” 

that he was not with Smith’s group. Id. at 21. On the way to jail, Smith stated 

she believed the no contact order had been dropped. The no contact order 

provided that Smith have no contact with Cannon and ordered that she not visit 

his address or “wherever [she] knows him[] to be located.” State’s Exhibit 1-a. 

The trial court specifically stated that it did not consider the events at the Taco 

Bell. With respect to the South Street location, the evidence presented

established, at most, the mere presence of Cannon. The officers were never

asked whether Smith and Cannon interacted with each other, whether she

communicated with him, or about the nature of any interaction or 

communication between them. At a minimum, the State did not present 

evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith possessed an intent 

to contact or communicate with Cannon in violation of the no contact order. 

[12] Based upon the record, and under these circumstances, the evidence did not 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith committed invasion of privacy. 

See Hunter v. State, 883 N.E.2d 1161, 1163-1164 (Ind. 2008) (observing that 

“contact” is not commonly understood “to occur by mere presence alone” and 

includes an element of communication, or an establishing of communication 

with someone, and concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish the 

appellant violated a no contact provision of his probation where the record 

revealed occasions of simply momentary presence in the same residence with 

children where he immediately left without interacting with them); cf. Luke v. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-663 | October 22, 2020 Page 9 of 9

State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 410-419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (observing the appellant 

“stared [the victims] down pretty much the whole time [they] were at work” 

and finding the appellant’s actions “far exceeded the ‘mere presence’ the Court 

discussed in Hunter” and, despite warnings from attorneys and police to go 

inside if one of the victims was in the parking lot, the appellant instead stared 

directly at the victims and stated that he would be outside more and the victims 

“just needed to get used to it”), trans. denied. 

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse Smith’s conviction. 

[14] Reversed. 

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.