« Ind. Decisions - "Dyer woman's in vitro court case first of its kind" | Main | Enironment - More on: DC Circuit strikes down the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) »
Friday, July 18, 2008
Ind. Decisions - "Ex-county official’s conviction reversed"
The July 15th Court of Appeals decision in the case of Donald D. Vanhorn v. State of Indiana (see ILB entry here - 3rd case) is the subject of a story today by Brian M. Boyce of the Terre Haute Tribune-Star. Some quotes:
The stalking conviction of a former county official was reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals Tuesday, and his defense attorney said new legal ground was broken in the case.“Sadly, here’s an innocent man that’s basically already served his entire punishment,” remarked defense attorney John A. Kesler II on Wednesday afternoon, noting that the home detention aspect of Donald D. VanHorn’s sentence was completed by the time the appeals process concluded.
In an opinion filed by the Court of Appeals of Indiana on Tuesday, the court reversed the class-D felony conviction of stalking found against VanHorn in the Vigo County Superior Court of Judge Barbara Brugnaux on Aug. 17, 2007 based on insufficient evidence.
Joseph Etling, VanHorn’s defense attorney in the original case, said “…the Court of Appeals decision reaffirms our position from the date that the charge was filed,” noting that the issue of insufficient evidence has been raised throughout the nearly year-long process.
VanHorn, formerly a deputy director of the Vigo County Emergency Management Agency, was accused of stalking Terre Haute resident Robert Franks for parking his vehicle across the street from Franks’ home, watching through binoculars and taking photographs. * * *
According to the appeals court, for the state to have established VanHorn’s stalking, it would have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he “knowingly or intentionally engaged in a course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of the victim, that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or threatened, and that actually caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.
“Stalking,” according to the court’s decision, “does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.”
The court’s decision, Kesler said, hinged on the term “impermissible contact,” as VanHorn argued that the “complained-of conduct merely consists of parking near Franks’ house on four separate occasions and looking at Franks’ house through binoculars on two of those occasions.”
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 18, 2008 08:28 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions