Edward Neil Schafer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 10 2019, 9:22 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kristina L. Lynn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wabash, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Steven J. Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward Neil Schafer, December 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1111
v. Appeal from the Wabash Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy C. Cornell,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Karen A. Springer,
Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
85D01-1706-CM-697
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Edward Neil Schafer appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion
of privacy. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On August 23, 2016, the Wabash Superior Court entered an order for
protection (the PO) against Schafer and in favor of Patrick E. Dingess, as well
as Dingess’s two sons. Dingess began dating Schafer’s ex-wife, April Ceslick,
in May 2016 and sought the PO based on allegations that Schafer had stalked
him. The PO, which was effective until August 23, 2018, enjoined Schafer
from, among other things, stalking, harassing, or contacting Dingess and
ordered Schafer to stay away from Dingess’s residence and place of
employment.
[4] On the evening of June 6, 2017, Schafer spoke with his father (Ed) and Jordan
Wells. He was upset, believing that Dingess had abused one of Schafer and
Ceslick’s daughters. Schafer asked Ed and Wells to go to the local police
department to obtain a copy of a statement he believed Ceslick had given to
police earlier that day. Schafer then angrily left Ed’s home, grabbed a baseball
bat, and said, “I’m gonna kill this mother f**ker.” Transcript Vol. II at 165.
Prior to this, Schafer had accurately described to Wells where Dingess currently
lived, which was different than the (former) address listed on the PO.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[5] After Schafer left, Wells drove Ed to the Manchester Police Department where,
around 9:30 p.m., they spoke to Officer Parker Stauffer and asked to see the
statement. Wells warned Officer Stauffer that “[Schafer] was p*ssed about
something and that it was concerning [Dingess] and they might want to be
cognizant of it.” Id. at 166-67. Ed’s demeanor at the police department also
worried Officer Stauffer. Officer Stauffer could not locate the information the
men desired, and they left after Officer Stauffer spoke with them for a period of
time and became “comfortable that Ed wasn’t going to take action that night
against Mr. Dingess.” Id. at 185. Officer Stauffer encouraged Wells to attempt
to calm Schafer down and to contact police if any potential conflicts arose.
[6] Around 11:18 that same night, Officer Stauffer and other officers were
dispatched to Dingess’s home, where he lived with his young adult sons,
Patrick and Caleb. Dingess was not home but his sons were. Patrick called 911
to report that Schafer was currently violating the PO by driving through the
alley in front of their house, watching them, and yelling at them.
[7] The events leading up to the 911 call, stated in the light most favorable to the
verdict, are as follows. The Dingess home can be accessed only by a gravel
alley that has three exit points. After dark, Ceslick drove to the home to visit
Dingess, who would soon be home from work. She observed the headlights of
another vehicle facing her in the alley and paused for it to pass but then realized
that the vehicle was stopped in front of the Dingess home. She slowly moved
forward and then the other vehicle moved toward her. As they pulled along
side each other, Ceslick realized that Schafer was driving the other vehicle.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 6
They made eye contact and then each sped away in opposite directions through
the alley. Ceslick then immediately called Dingess.
[8] In the meantime, Caleb and Patrick had heard “commotion outside” the home,
including loud music and vehicles in the alley. Id. at 58-59. They eventually
stepped outside to investigate and saw as Ceslick sped away. They then called
Ceslick, who told them that Schafer had been at the house and to call the
police. Ceslick proceeded to drive around the block a few times, and Patrick
observed her being followed by Schafer. Patrick called 911, as Caleb spoke over
the phone with Dingess. Both had baseball bats for their protection. Schafer
pulled into the alley and stopped down from the home during the 911 call and
yelled at Caleb and Patrick.
[9] After about forty-five seconds, Schafer drove away as police officers arrived
from another end of the alley. Officers located Schafer minutes later in a
nearby park. He was outside of his vehicle holding a baseball bat. Schafer
“seemed agitated” and claimed that he was just playing some baseball. Id. at
122. Officer Stauffer eventually arrived at the park and could not get Schafer
calmed down enough to take a statement, so he told Schafer to leave because
the park was closed.
[10] On June 13, 2017, the State charged Schafer with invasion of privacy, a Class A
misdemeanor. Following a two-day trial, the jury found him guilty on April 10,
2019, and he was later sentenced to 365 days in the Wabash County Jail.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 6
[11] On appeal, Schafer does not contest the fact that the PO was in effect on the
day in question or that he was aware of its existence. Schafer claims only that
the State failed to sufficiently establish that he knowingly or intentionally
violated the PO. 1 Specifically, he contends that his contact that evening was
with Ceslick, who was not covered by the PO, and that there was no credible,
reliable evidence that he drove down the alley near the Dingess home.
[12] Schafer’s argument ignores our well-established standard of review. As our
Supreme Court has stated: “Convictions should be affirmed unless no
reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” T.H. v. State, 92 N.E.3d 624, 626 (Ind. 2018). Thus, when
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction, and we
should not assess witness credibility or weigh the evidence. See Moore v. State,
27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). The trier of fact is entitled to determine which
version of the incident to credit by resolving conflicts in the evidence and
deciding which witnesses to believe or disbelieve. See Murray v. State, 761
N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002); Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007), trans. denied.
1
Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(2), a person who knowingly or intentionally violates an ex parte
protective order issued under I.C. 34-26-5 (like the PO in this case) commits invasion of privacy, a Class A
misdemeanor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[13] The evidence favorable to the verdict establishes that Schafer was angry after
learning of potential allegations involving his daughter and Dingess. He
discussed the matter with his father and Wells, asked them to obtain
information from the police department, and then left with a baseball bat and
insinuated that he was going to take matters into his own hands. Schafer’s
actions prompted Wells to warn Officer Stauffer of Schafer’s rage.
[14] Shortly thereafter, Schafer drove into the alley and parked in front of the
Dingess home, where he knew Dingess to live. Schafer drove off when Ceslick
discovered him but then continued to follow her around the block multiple
times as she frantically spoke with Dingess and then Patrick on the phone.
Thereafter, Patrick called 911, and while he spoke with the dispatcher, Schafer
returned to the alley, stopped short of the Dingess home, and yelled at Patrick
and Caleb. Shafer left just before the police arrived. He then drove to a nearby
park, where he was found minutes later holding a baseball bat outside his
vehicle around 11:20 p.m.
[15] The evidence amply supports Schafer’s conviction, and we reject his improper
invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.
[16] Judgment affirmed.
Robb, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1111 | December 10, 2019 Page 6 of 6