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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darren Morgan,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 28, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1508-CR-1169

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Angela Davis,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G16-1503-CM-8893

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1508-CR-1169 | April 28, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary

[1] Darren Morgan violated a court order prohibiting him from having contact with 

his girlfriend and her children. He was charged with and convicted of class A 

misdemeanor invasion of privacy. On appeal, Morgan argues that there is 

insufficient evidence to prove that he knowingly or intentionally violated the

no-contact order. We disagree and affirm his conviction. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the conviction demonstrate that in September 2014, 

Roysha Cole and her three children moved into Morgan’s home. On January 

3, 2015, a Marion Superior Court judge issued a no-contact order prohibiting 

Morgan from having contact with Cole and her children as a condition of 

pretrial release. Consequently, Morgan moved out while Cole continued to live 

in the home and pay the mortgage and utilities. Morgan visited the home on 

January 3, 4, and 5, each time telling Cole not to call the police because of the 

protective order, which he signed on January 14. Tr. at 61-62. Late on the 

night of March 13, 2015, Morgan entered the home through the garage door, 

walked into Cole’s bedroom, and told her not to call the police. Cole was 

afraid. Id. at 39-40. Morgan remained at the home on the morning of March 

14.

[3] At around 11:00 a.m., Nicole Hazel, a Children’s Bureau community liaison, 

met with Cole outside the home. Hazel knew that Cole had been crying 

because her eyes were puffy, red, and full of tears. Id. at 72-73. Cole invited 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1508-CR-1169 | April 28, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Hazel inside the home, and while they were talking, Morgan walked from the 

bedroom, through the living room, and toward the garage. Hazel asked Cole if 

she had a protective order against Morgan. When Cole confirmed that she did, 

Hazel ended the meeting, went to her car, and called the police. 

[4] Officer Robert Rider from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department 

arrived at the home. Morgan hid in the bedroom closet and told Cole not to 

answer the door. Cole answered the door and told Officer Rider that Morgan 

was in the back bedroom. Officer Rider yelled for Morgan to come out of the 

bedroom four times, and he did not respond. Id. at 94. Officer Rider yelled for 

Morgan a fifth time, and Morgan came out of the bedroom closet where he was 

hiding. Morgan was arrested for violating his no-contact order.

[5] The State charged Morgan with class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, 

alleging that he violated the no-contact order on or about March 14 by going to 

a place where Cole was known to be. In May 2015, a jury found Morgan guilty 

as charged.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Morgan argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 

“When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a 

criminal conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility 

of witnesses.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We consider 

only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the verdict. McHenry 

v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). “‘[W]e affirm if there is substantial 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1508-CR-1169 | April 28, 2016 Page 3 of 5
evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a 

reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt.’” Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 134 (quoting Davis v. State, 813 

N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind. 2004)).

[7] To convict Morgan of class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy as charged, the 

State had to show that he knowingly or intentionally violated a no-contact 

order issued as a condition of pretrial release by going to a place where he knew 

Cole would be. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1. “A person engages in conduct 

‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high 

probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b). “A person engages 

in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious 

objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). 

[8] Morgan contends that he did not violate knowingly or intentionally the nocontact order because he was under the impression that Cole was going to 

move out of his house. Nevertheless, he knowingly violated the no-contact 

order because he was aware of the high probability that Cole would be in his 

home when he visited. On the night of March 13, Morgan visited his home, 

walked into the room where Cole was sleeping, and told her not to call the 

police. Instead of leaving, when he realized that he was in a place where he 

knew Cole to be, he stayed into the morning of March 14. Morgan also

demonstrated his conscious objective to violate the no-contact order when he 

stayed overnight in the home with Cole and told her not to leave the residence, 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1508-CR-1169 | April 28, 2016 Page 4 of 5
call the police, or answer the door. The State presented sufficient evidence to 

prove that Morgan knowingly and intentionally violated his no-contact order. 

[9] Morgan also argues that the no-contact order deprived him of his right to 

occupy and enjoy his home. We disagree. Morgan could have sought a 

modification of the order directly from the trial court, or called the police for 

assistance. These methods would have provided Morgan relief without 

violating the no-contact order. The State points out that neither the protective 

order nor the invasion of privacy statute provides an exception to a no-contact 

order when the protected person lives in the defendant’s house. The foregoing 

evidence sufficiently supports Morgan’s conviction of class A misdemeanor 

invasion of privacy. Consequently, we affirm.

[10] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1508-CR-1169 | April 28, 2016 Page 5 of 5