Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 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

Zachary J. Stock

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Patrick McCartney,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 21, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1992

Appeal from the 

Hendricks Superior Court

The Honorable 

Stephenie Lemay-Luken, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

32D05-1904-F5-52

Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Patrick McCartney appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony invasion of 

privacy, arguing that it is not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] McCartney married J.N. (“Mother”) in 2009. Their son, B.M. (“Son”), was 

born in March 2013. In November 2016, Mother filed for divorce and 

requested a protective order, alleging that McCartney had abused and 

threatened her. Mother was granted a two-year protective order that prohibited 

McCartney from, among other things, “directly or indirectly communicating 

with” Mother. Trial Ex. 18. After the divorce was finalized in November 

2017, the protective order was extended until December 2028.

[3] The divorce court granted McCartney parenting time that included Facetime 

calls with Son. To enable Son to use Facetime on her iPad, Mother created an 

iCloud email address for Son, and the email address was provided to 

McCartney. Between March 13 and March 20, 2019, shortly after Son’s sixth 

birthday, McCartney sent numerous emails to Son’s email address, including 

the following:

Good morning [Son]! Your always in my heart even though evil 

people keep u and I apart God will bless u and I and those who 

have done wrong will be dealt with God’s wrath! I love u little 

boy!!!!!
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 Page 3 of 6

Good morning son!!!!!!! Your father’s love for u is forever and 

know one can ever take that away! Not with their lyes and 

behind back talk and evil! I’m thinking of you and miss us so 

much!

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are 

open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them 

that do evil. 1 Peter 3:12 KJV

Good morning [Son]! I love you son! Our bond will always be 

with each other my boy, and one day soon we will be in each 

other’s arms and be as father and son with love for one and 

other. Always praying for you that God keeps you safe and that 

your surroundings are healthy and his love for you and I are 

abundant! Evil people will never prevail son! Love u always 

Trial Ex. 5. Mother saw the emails on her iPad, read them, and, believing that 

McCartney had violated the protective order, contacted law enforcement.

[4] The State charged McCartney with Level 6 felony invasion of privacy (elevated 

from a Class A misdemeanor because he was convicted of the same offense in 

August 2017). See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a). A jury trial was held, and 

Mother testified that she believed the emails were actually intended for her

because Son did not know how to access the emails, let alone read them, “[t]he 

content was all of the same things that I had been hearing in the previous 

messages that I had received,” and “the words that were used regarding evil and 

wrath and God and the enemy, those are all words that I’ve heard before.” Tr. 

Vol. III pp. 20, 30. The State introduced printoffs of several such messages

from McCartney to Mother as an exhibit. Trial Ex. 2. The jury found 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 Page 4 of 6

McCartney guilty of invasion of privacy, McCartney admitted that he has a 

prior conviction for the same offense, and the trial court sentenced him to two 

years in prison.

[5] McCartney now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] McCartney contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we 

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the 

verdict. Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705, 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. 

We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. Id. We consider 

conflicting evidence most favorably to the verdict. Id. We will affirm the 

conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. The evidence is 

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

verdict. Id. 

[7] McCartney was charged under Indiana Code section 35-46-1-15.1(a)(1), which 

provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally violates “a protective 

order to prevent domestic or family violence or harassment issued under IC 34-

26-5” commits invasion of privacy. As noted above, the protective order in this 

case prohibits McCartney from “directly or indirectly communicating with” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 Page 5 of 6

Mother. McCartney concedes that he indirectly communicated with Mother, 

but he argues that the State failed to prove that he did so knowingly or 

intentionally. Specifically, he asserts that there is not enough evidence to 

support the jury’s conclusion that he “sent the emails to his son knowing or 

intending that [Mother] would receive them.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. We 

disagree.

[8] “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). “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.” Id. at (b). These elements may 

be proven by circumstantial evidence alone and may be inferred from the facts 

and circumstances of each case. McMiller v. State, 90 N.E.3d 672, 675 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2017). Here, the State presented evidence that Mother set up Son’s email 

address solely to facilitate Facetime calls, that Son did not know how to access 

emails sent to the email address, and that even if he had known how to access 

the emails he would not have been able to read them. More importantly, the 

State presented evidence, both testimony and an exhibit, that some of the 

language used in the emails, such as “evil” and “wrath,” matched language 

McCartney used toward Mother in earlier messages to her. Taking all this 

evidence together, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that it was 

McCartney’s “conscious objective” for the emails to be read by Mother or at 

least that he was “aware of a high probability” that Mother would read them. 

[9] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1992 | February 21, 2020 Page 6 of 6

Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.