Jarvere C. Watson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jarvere Watson posted videos on Facebook threatening to kill I.E., the mother of his children, when a no-contact order barred such communications. He again threatened to kill I.E. in a voicemail to his probation officer. As a result, the trial court revoked Watson's probation. He now appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion by admitting the Facebook videos into evidence and that insufficient evidence supported the revocation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] While under a protective order forbidding Watson from having contact with I.E., Watson showed up uninvited at I.E.’s residence, accused her of “stealing his inventions,” and threatened to kill her if their children were not removed from her home. App. Vol. II, p. 19. Based on this incident, Watson pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, with credit for time served, and the remainder of the sentence suspended to probation. As a condition of probation, Watson was ordered to have no contact with I.E. “in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or in any other way, directly or indirectly.” App. Vol. II, p. 31. The order also specifically prohibited “acts of harassment, stalking, intimidation, threats, and physical force of any kind.” Id.

[3] Three months later, I.E. shared with police two alarming videos that had been posted to a Facebook account bearing the name “Jarvere Watson Illumajavy.” Exh. 4. In one video, Watson speaks to the camera and alleges that I.E. committed molestation, bought crack cocaine, and gave sexually-transmitted diseases to another person. He then states, “I'm trying to get a gun to go kill these people.” Id. at 1:01-03. Later in the video, he threatens to “knock y'all losers out today.” Id. at 2:56-58.

[4] In a second video, Watson again speaks to the camera and asks a person by name to kill I.E.: “Lil Lewis, I want I.E. and [another person's] family dead today ․ If I get my money and you don't have them dead, the GDs is gonna kill you.” Exh. 5 at 0:35-44. Watson continues: “I want my money, I'ma kill this b***h.” Id. at 0:52-54.

[5] Around the same time, Watson left his probation officer a voicemail message in which Watson stated that I.E. had tried to kill him and that if she attempted to murder him, he would kill her. Watson urged: “[G]et, the f**k, this lady ‘fore I kill her.” Exh. 6 at 0:52-54. He also texted his probation officer undated screenshots of direct social media messages between himself and I.E., which Watson claimed showed that I.E. “was out to get him.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 46.

[6] The State then filed a notice of probation violation, alleging Watson failed to comply with the no-contact order. At an evidentiary hearing, a detective trained in cybercrimes identified Watson's face and voice in the Facebook videos. Watson admitted that the account belonged to him and that he had made the videos. However, he claimed he had recorded them years earlier and no longer had access to the Facebook account from which they were posted.

[7] After the hearing, the trial court found Watson had violated the no-contact order and, thus, his probation. As a result, the court revoked Watson's probation and ordered him to serve the remaining 217 days of his previously suspended sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Watson appeals the revocation of his probation on two alternative grounds. First, he claims the trial court erred by admitting the two Facebook videos into evidence. Second, he claims the videos and other evidence presented by the State were insufficient evidence to prove he violated his probation. We are unpersuaded and therefore affirm.

I. Admission of Facebook Videos

[9] We review the trial court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Probation revocation hearings are not subject to the formal rules of evidence but instead utilize more “flexible” procedures. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind. 1999). Courts may consider any relevant evidence bearing “some substantial indicia of reliability.” Id. at 551.

[10] Watson claims the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the two Facebook videos because they lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. The evidence, however, shows that the videos were posted during Watson's probationary period to a Facebook account bearing Watson's name. Watson also admitted that he made the videos and that the account belonged to him. Additionally, a detective identified Watson in the videos by both his face and voice. This evidence provided sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the videos’ admission. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion.

II. Sufficiency of Evidence

[11] Watson next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that he violated the no-contact order and, thus, his probation. We review probation revocation decisions for an abuse of discretion and consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We affirm a trial court's determination that a probation violation occurred if it is supported by “substantial evidence of probative value.” Id.

[12] A condition of Watson's probation was to comply with a no-contact order that prohibited him from communicating with I.E. “directly or indirectly” or “through an intermediary.” App. Vol. II, p. 31. The evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals multiple instances in which Watson failed to comply with these prohibitions.

[13] First, Watson posted public Facebook videos containing inflammatory and threatening statements about I.E. His use of the widely-accessed public website as an intermediary to reach I.E. amounted to indirect contact in violation of the no-contact order. See Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (finding post about protected person's business on public website constituted indirect contact). Watson admitted that the Facebook account belonged to him, and the trial court was not required to credit his self-serving testimony that he no longer had access to the account. We will not reweigh conflicting evidence on appeal. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639.

[14] The record also contains evidence of Watson's direct contact with I.E. through social media messages. While Watson disputes the timing of these messages because the screenshots are not dated, the trial court could reasonably infer they were exchanged during the probation period because Watson volunteered them to his probation officer in conjunction with his voicemail message. And in that message, Watson accused I.E. of trying to kill him and called for the probation officer to intervene. We defer to the trial court's assessment of this evidence, recognizing that issues involving invasion of privacy and no-contact orders “are fact specific and such determinations are best made by the finder of fact rather than a reviewing court on appeal.” Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1197 (Ind. 2018).

[15] Each of these violations alone would support revocation. Together, they provide more than sufficient evidence that Watson knowingly violated the no-contact order.

Conclusion

[16] The trial court properly admitted the Facebook videos and sufficient evidence supported its finding that Watson violated his no-contact order, in turn violating his probation. We therefore affirm the revocation of Watson's probation.

Judges Pyle and Felix concur. Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.