Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1409-CR-393 | April 17, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Joel C. Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kenneth E. Biggins

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James D. Benge,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 17, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

67A01-1409-CR-393

Appeal from the Putnam Superior 

Court

Cause Nos. 67D01-1304-CM-166,

67D01-1304-CM-170

The Honorable Thomas Milligan, 

Senior Judge

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1409-CR-393 | April 17, 2015 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] James Benge appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion of 

privacy. We affirm.

Issue

Benge raises one issue, which we restate as whether there is sufficient evidence 

to support his conviction.

Facts

[2] In the March 2013, Benge and his wife, Melissa Benge, were separated, and she 

had filed for divorce. The couple had one daughter and exchanged custody at 

the Greencastle Police Department. At a March 19, 2013 hearing related to the 

dissolution, an order of protection was issued prohibiting Benge “from 

harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or directly or indirectly 

communicating with” Melissa. Cause No. 166 Ex. 1. The child was not 

removed from the protective order to allow for parenting time.

[3] During a custody exchange on March 24, 2013, Melissa arrived at the police 

station before Benge. When Benge arrived, he left their child in his car and 

walked over to Melissa’s car. Melissa described Benge as “irritated” about the 

protective order and pending criminal charges. Tr. p. 67. Benge asked Melissa 

about Kevin Strezlic and wanted to know who Strezlic was and how Melissa 

knew Strezlic because he had become Facebook friends with Melissa. Benge 

also told Melissa he wanted to meet Strezlic. Melissa told Benge it was none of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1409-CR-393 | April 17, 2015 Page 3 of 5

his business, and the conversation lasted for ten to fifteen minutes. The 

conversation did not relate to the couples’ child. 

[4] On April 4, 2013, the State charged Benge with two counts of Class A 

misdemeanor invasion of privacy.1 A bench trial was held, and the trial court 

found Benge guilty as charged. In doing so, the trial court stated:

the Court believes that Mr. Benge initiated the conversation about Mr. 

Strezlic . . . and wanted to know about him and that that’s a 

communication that’s not about the child. . . . I think that it’s beyond 

the exception that’s allowed by the Protective Order. 

Tr. pp. 92-93. Benge now appeals.

Analysis

[5] Benge argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. When reviewing a challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the 

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

view the evidence—even if conflicting—and all reasonable inferences drawn 

from it in a light most favorable to the conviction and affirm if there is 

substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime 

 

1

 On March 31, 2013, another incident occurred during a custody exchange, and Benge was charged with a 

second count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Benge does not challenge that conviction. He 

was also charged in a separate information with a third count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, 

which arose out of an April 3, 2013 incident. Information relating to that charge and the transcript of that

trial is included in the record on appeal. Because Benge only challenges the March 24, 2013 incident, we 

limit the facts and our analysis to that incident. In this regard, Benge’s reference to the trial court’s finding 

about the April 3, 2013 incident is not relevant to our analysis. See Tr. pp. 58-59.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1409-CR-393 | April 17, 2015 Page 4 of 5

from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

[6] A person who knowingly or intentionally violates a protective order to prevent 

domestic or family violence commits invasion of privacy, a Class A 

misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(1). Benge argues that his 

communication with Melissa on March 24, 2013 was not beyond the bounds of 

innocent communications accompanying a typical child exchange and was not 

harassing or annoying. 

[7] We disagree. The protective order specifically prohibited Benge “from 

harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or directly or indirectly 

communicating with” Melissa. Cause No. 166 Ex. 1. Benge was irritated 

when he spoke with Melissa while the child remained in his car. During the ten 

to fifteen minute conversation, Benge questioned Melissa about her relationship 

with another man and asked to meet him. Melissa specifically testified that the 

conversation did not relate to the couple’s child. The trial court was able to 

assess Melissa’s and Benge’s credibility when they testified at trial and found 

that the conversation was not a communication about the child and went 

beyond the exception for supervised parenting time. There is sufficient 

evidence to establish that Benge knowingly or intentionally contacted and/or 

communicated with Melissa in violation of the protective order. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1409-CR-393 | April 17, 2015 Page 5 of 5

Conclusion

[8] There is sufficient evidence to support Benge’s conviction for Class A 

misdemeanor invasion of privacy. We affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.