Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 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

Troy D. Warner

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Christopher Betts,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 8, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1705-CR-1234

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Elizabeth Hardtke, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 

71D07-1609-CM-4659 

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Christopher Betts appeals his conviction for class A misdemeanor invasion of 

privacy.

Issue

[1] The sole issue before us is whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain Betts’s 

conviction.

Facts

[2] Betts and A.R. dated for ten years and have a daughter together. On October 6, 

2014, the St. Joseph Circuit Court issued a protective order that: (1) enjoined 

Betts from threatening to commit or committing acts of domestic or family 

violence against A.R. or her children; and (2) prohibited him from harassing, 

annoying, telephoning, contacting, or communicating directly or indirectly with 

A.R. The protective order prohibited Betts from going to A.R.’s workplace, her 

children’s schools and bus stops, and the site of their daughter’s after-school 

program. On October 7, 2014, the protective order was served upon Betts when 

a sheriff hung it upon the door of his residence in South Bend. The St. Joseph 

Circuit Court ordered that the protective order would expire on October 6, 

2016.

[3] On September 4, 2015, Betts telephoned A.R. to speak with their daughter. 

A.R. and Betts discussed the protective order. On March 22, 2016, A.R. was in 

the parking lot of her St. Joseph County workplace. From a distance of 

approximately two hundred feet and across the street, Betts shouted to A.R. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 3 of 6

“over and over again,” using his nickname for her, and asking to borrow her

car. Tr. p. 19. A.R. “rushed” into her workplace. Id. at 26. 

[4] On September 19, 2016, the State charged Betts with class A misdemeanor 

invasion of privacy.1 A.R. testified to the foregoing facts at a bench trial. In the 

following colloquy, she testified that, as of September 4, 2015, Betts knew that

the protective order was in effect:

Q. [A.R.], in that September of 2015 conversation, did you 

discuss the protective order with Mr. Betts?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Mr. Betts say in regards to that protective order?

A: Well he knew we weren’t supposed to have contact, but he 

made contact, because it was [Betts’s and his daughter’s] birthday 

and he had asked that he could see her for her birthday.

Q: And what did he say specifically in regards to that 

protective order?

A: We discussed the protective order, that there was one in 

place. He knew there was one in place.

 

1 The State charged Betts with two separate violations of the same protective order. The causes, 71D04-1610-

CM-005039 and 71D07-1609-CM-004659, were consolidated for purposes of trial. This appeal pertains only 

to cause 71D07-1609-CM-004659, the instant workplace violation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 4 of 6

Id. at 25. Additionally, the State presented a BMV driving record that indicated

that Betts resided at 3550 Northside Boulevard, Apartment A4, South Bend, at 

the time that notice of the protective order was served at that address. Betts 

testified that, on the date in question, he just happened to be across the street 

from A.R.’s workplace, but he “didn’t know she worked there”; that he saw 

A.R., but did not speak to her; and that he was unaware of the protective order. 

Id. at 47.

[5] The trial court found Betts guilty and sentenced him to 180 days executed on 

71D07-1609-CM-004659.

2

 Betts now appeals.

Analysis

[6] Betts argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only 

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane 

v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility 

or reweigh evidence. Id. We affirm the conviction 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. The uncorroborated testimony of one witness 

 

2

 The trial court also found Betts guilty and sentenced him to 90 days executed on 71D04-1610-CM-005039. 

The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 5 of 6

can be sufficient to sustain a conviction, even when that witness is the victim. 

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

[7] To prove that Betts committed class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, the 

State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally violated the 

October 6, 2014, protective order, which was issued under Indiana Code 

Chapter 34-26-5 to prevent domestic or family violence against A.R. 

[8] Betts contends that: (1) he was never served with the protective order; (2) the 

protective order did not require him to maintain a specific distance from A.R.; 

(3) he was near A.R.’s workplace for an innocent reason and “[A.R.] stumbled 

on [him] on her way to work,” Appellant’s Br. p. 9; and that he, therefore, did 

not knowingly or intentionally violate the protective order.

[9] Here, the State presented evidence that the protective order was served at 

Betts’s residence in October 2014, along with A.R.’s testimony that Betts was 

aware of the protective order long before the alleged workplace violation in 

March 2016, when Betts appeared near A.R.’s workplace, shouted at her 

repeatedly, and asked to use her car. Based on the foregoing evidence and 

reasonable inferences from it, the trial judge could reasonably conclude that 

Betts knowingly and intentionally violated the protective order issued under 

Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-5. Betts’s arguments on appeal amount to requests 

that we judge A.R.’s credibility, which we will not do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 

146. The trial court weighed the witnesses’ conflicting testimony and found 

Betts guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A.R.’s testimony is sufficient to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1705-CR-1234 | December 8, 2017 Page 6 of 6

support Betts’s conviction. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135 (holding a conviction 

may be based upon a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony). 

Conclusion

[10] Sufficient evidence exists to sustain Betts’s conviction. We affirm.

Affirmed.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.