G.O., Appellant v. K.R., Appellee (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] G.O. appeals the trial court's entry of an Order for Protection in favor of K.R. and claims the evidence does not support the order. We affirm.¹

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 18, 2025, K.R. filed a Petition for an Order for Protection and Request for a Hearing alleging that G.O. committed repeated acts of harassment against her. K.R. alleged the following incident (“Incident #1”) occurred “(on or about) 07/2024”:

After church, we had a fellowship meal, and [G.O.] called me over to where he was sitting. He grabbed my arm and told me he wanted me to call him sometime. He didn't say why, but when my father called him asking why [G.O.] wanted to call me, [G.O.] tried to deny it, and then he wouldn't specify the reason.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 10. K.R. alleged the following incident (“Incident #2”) occurred at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana, on or about February 14, 2025:

[G.O.] came to Taylor [University] to give me a valentine basket. I hadn't talked to him since the incident of July, 2024. I went to the campus store to pick up this valentine because I didn't know who it was from. I later found out that [G.O.] told the ladies who work at the campus store that he was my grandpa, but he is not my grandpa. When the police confronted him about lying and saying he was my grandpa, [G.O.] denied ever having said that. After I picked the valentine basket up, [G.O.] stepped out from the corner of the store with dark sunglasses on and quietly said “hola muchacha.” When I asked what he was doing here he told me he wanted to see me. He tried to get me to step outside with him to go on a walk, but I told him that we could talk inside the campus store. He quietly said “well, I don't want them (the ladies working the front desk) to hear.” But I told him that I'll talk loud enough for them to hear. He told me he thought I was “cold” ever since July, and he wondered what happened because he thought we were good friends before. I told him he made me feel uncomfortable and that his behavior was completely inappropriate considering he's a 73 year old man, and I'm a 19 year old girl. He asked if there was some other time we could meet up to talk, and I said no. I told him I had a class to get to, but he kept saying he wanted to talk, so I eventually left. I immediately left Taylor campus because I was planning to go home anyway, but the campus police told me he was staying at a bed and breakfast in Grant County all weekend.

Id.

[3] On March 12, 2025, the court held a hearing. Taylor University Police Chief Michael Spaulding testified that K.R. contacted his department on February 14th and that she was upset, did not want G.O. around, and was worried that he would follow her. Chief Spaulding indicated that his investigation revealed that G.O. had been to several locations on campus attempting to see K.R. or obtain her contact information. He testified that G.O. told one of the campus bookstore's employees “that he was [K.R.’s] grandpa” and was trying to obtain K.R.’s phone number from the employee, the employee “said that [G.O.] was out also at the regist[rar's] office next door ․ [and] was asking for her over there too,” and that G.O. “had made a phone call to another department on campus ․ asking for information on her, student development.” Transcript Volume II at 8-9. Chief Spaulding testified that he called G.O. on February 16th, learned that G.O. was staying at a bed and breakfast in the Upland area, and went to the location to speak with him. He testified that G.O.’s “first comments were about that he came to Upland to visit [K.R.] and give her a gift but later on in the conversation he said [he] had truck service in the Muncie Indiana Toyota dealer which is about 30 minutes from Taylor and 3 to 4 hours north of where he lives.” Id. at 16. He also testified that G.O. stated “he had the bed and breakfast ․ from Friday night through Sunday night and was going to go to this Toyota dealer service appointment in Muncie on Monday,” “I asked him why he didn't go to a Toyota dealer, you know 4 hours closer to where he lives,” “he didn't really have a good answer,” and “I asked him if he had any service appointment notification or reminders from the dealership and he was unable to provide any of those.” Id. at 12. Chief Spaulding testified that he issued a trespass notice to G.O. He also stated, “I could tell [K.R.] was shook up about it.” Id.

[4] K.R. testified that G.O. used to attend her church. She testified, “we had a service and then we had a fellowship dinner afterwards and I was walking into the room,” “[G.O.] like pointed to me like this and said to come here,” “he told me that he wanted me to call him and he didn't specify why but he just told me that he needed me to call him,” and “I simply walked away and I later told my dad about it but I did not call him.” Id. at 21. She testified, “it made me quite uncomfortable, especially since he didn't state the reason that he wanted me to call him.” Id. When asked, “you didn't tell him in that moment at church, I don't want to have any contact with you, but would you say ․ the fact that you didn't reach out to contact him would have sent that same message,” K.R. replied, “[y]es, everything that you said is true.” Id. at 22. She stated, “I was trying to be polite and, in all honesty, I was a little bit angry in the situation because I didn't want to call him, so I thought it was best to step away and maybe not say anything at the time.” Id. She indicated that, in May 2024, G.O. had given her gift cards for her graduation to Dairy Queen and Kohls in the amounts of $250 and $50. When asked “[d]id you request that he give you those gifts in any way or tell him, hey I'm graduating, are you going to get me a present something like that,” K.R. responded, “No, I did not, I didn't even invite him to my graduation party, but I guess the church knew about it.” Id. at 23.

[5] K.R. further testified that, on Valentine's Day 2025, which was on a Friday, she was packing her car for a trip home when she received a voicemail from the campus bookstore stating there was “a special Valentine in the campus bookstore that needs to be picked up.” Id. at 25. She testified that she walked into the bookstore, picked up the gift, and “turned around and [G.O.] was there with sunglasses on.” Id. at 26. She “was very shocked because [she] did not expect to see him there and [ ] did not think that it was from him because [she] had not opened the Valentine yet.” Id. She testified, “he asked me if we could go outside to talk,” “I said no and ․ stepped back into the campus bookstore so I was within sight and then hearing range of the lady who's working the front desk,” “he told me that I had been cold to him and that he just wanted to talk,” and “after standing there for a while and trying to figure out what to say, I told him that I had a class and I had to leave, and so, I left.” Id. She stated, “he told me twice that he wanted to go outside and talk, and both times I said no and then once I finally stepped back inside, he said that he wants to be quiet so that the lady at the front desk can't hear us talking.” Id. at 26-27. She stated, “I felt complete shock because I had not seen him ․ since July,” “[i]t had been a very long time and ․ I was just not expecting it at all,” “as we kept talking, I felt increasingly unsafe, especially since he asked me to step outside and talk with him,” “I didn't know what his intentions were ․ and why this wasn't a conversation that we could have had at a normal volume inside the campus store,” “[i]t made me feel like there was something else going on and just something that I needed to be aware of and a feeling that I was unsafe,” and “I was concerned about potentially being harmed.” Id. at 27. K.R. indicated that the incident and conversation caused her emotional distress. When asked, “[i]f in fact it is true that he was seeking your phone number or contact information from other individuals on campus, does that also cause you reason for concern,” she answered, “[y]es, it definitely does.” Id. at 28. K.R. indicated that she was nineteen years old. When asked to describe the gift she received from G.O., she stated “it was a Valentine Day card and nothing was written in it and it was also a large heart-shaped box of chocolates and also a lantern like a candle that was inside of a glass container.” Id. at 29.

[6] On cross-examination, K.R. indicated that she wrote G.O. a thank you card for the graduation gifts.

[7] G.O. testified that he was seventy-three years old and began attending the church in August of 2023. With respect to Incident #1 alleged in the petition, G.O. stated “I know it's not the correct date ․ [b]ecause ․ I keep a journal of things that I do and people that I meet” and that the incident occurred on June 9th. Id. at 45-46. G.O. stated that K.R. walked up and handed him a thank you card. He testified: “I asked well, you know can you talk and she said no I've got to go and so can you call me later, ask your dad for my number, he's got it.” Id. at 47.

[8] He testified, “I got a safety notice and alert telling me to bring my truck into any of their dealerships that had to be inspected for potential safety issues ․ so, I decided to go there and to look up [K.R.] and to stay at the bed and breakfast.” Id. at 50-51. He indicated that his car appointment was on February 17, 2025. He testified, “I was sitting at the storefront window, which is why I was wearing sunglasses because it was a very sunny day,” K.R. picked up the gifts and “was almost outside,” and “I called out to her.” Id. at 53. He stated he did not tell anyone that he was K.R.’s grandfather. G.O. testified, “I asked her if she would like to talk and she said, ‘I've gotta go, I've got class’, I said, ‘can we talk another time, can we meet later’, she said ‘no, I don't want to go against my father’ and ․ I was surprised by her answer” and “she took off and I just watched her leave and that was it I figured, hey, if somebody doesn't want to see me, I'm not going to bother.” Id. at 54. He stated, “I'm not one of those who's going to cause problems for somebody who doesn't want [ ] to talk to me, which is why I was the one who was shocked at her reaction to me being there, she was surprised, but I was shocked.” Id. at 55. When asked “$250 you would agree could be quite a sizeable gift,” G.O. stated, “[y]eah, I think the first gift was for Dairy Queen, very innocuous gift for $50.00 and then maybe $150.00 for Kohls, I figured she might need a jacket or something.” Id. at 56.

[9] The trial court stated:

[G.O.], I find your version of events at the very limit of plausibility, the idea that you would go all the way to Upland Indiana to get your truck service passing no fewer than six, according to my google maps search the Toyota dealerships on the way there to take your vehicle in to be serviced in Muncie which is 40 minutes away from upland, doesn't make sense. The idea that you keep a journal that is so tight and in that journal you make a notation of the actual day that you had an encounter with a 19-year-old girl I find to be bizarre. I also find it's bizarre that you think it's normal to show up after 3 1/2 hours to give a gift to a young lady that you have maybe at best a passing church relationship with. I feel like the first incident that she described when you try to take her aside and she doesn't have to say no and no further conduct. She's an 18-year-old girl, you're a 73-year-old man, you should know the boundaries, you should be able to read. I agree with [K.R.’s Counsel's] assessment in that. I also think that the idea of a college girl being approached by a grown man, she hasn't seen in a while who was rebuffed the last time and had described her as being cold and I want to talk to you privately, there's no foundation in reality. I do find that a reasonable person would take that as an implicit threat to be placed in reasonable fear of sexual battery or serious bodily injury or death, that's how these things happen, I feel like predators pick their victims carefully and the idea that you lean on her good graces and the fact that her parents raised her well enough to send you a thank you note is revisionist history at best and I'm granting this.

Id. at 66-67. The court entered an Order for Protection prohibiting G.O. from contacting or directly or indirectly communicating with K.R. G.O. filed a motion to correct error, which the court denied.

Discussion

[10] Before addressing G.O.’s arguments, we note that K.R. has not filed an appellee's brief. When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments, and we apply a less stringent standard of review, that is, we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Bixler v. Delano, 185 N.E.3d 875, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Prima facie is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. This rule was established so that we might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly rests with the appellee. Id. at 878.

[11] G.O. asserts the evidence does not support the court's order. He argues:

Here, the evidence established as two isolated and non-threatening interactions between [G.O.] and [K.R.] over a seven-month span. The first incident occurred in a public church setting, where [K.R.] approached [G.O.] to give him a thank-you note. [K.R.] admits that she did not feel threatened and did not tell [G.O.] not to contact her. The second interaction, on or about February 14, 2025, involved [G.O.] delivering a Valentines gift. While [K.R.] expressed disinterest at that time, this was the first and only time that she told [G.O.] not to contact her. [G.O.] testified that he ceased all contact after that day. There is no evidence of threatening behavior, repeated attempts at contact, or actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized or intimidated.

Appellant's Brief at 11. He also argues that the court improperly relied on “Google Maps” in assessing his credibility. Id. at 12.

[12] We review a denial of a motion to correct error for abuse of discretion. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. 2008), reh'g denied. When a party appeals a trial court's judgment entering a protective order, we apply a two-tiered standard of review—we consider whether the evidence supports the court's findings and, if so, whether those findings support the judgment. S.D. v. G.D., 211 N.E.3d 494, 497 (Ind. 2023). Ind. Code § 34-26-5-2(b) provides: “A person who is or has been subjected to harassment may file a petition for an order for protection against a person who has committed repeated acts of harassment against the petitioner.” At the time of the order for protection, Ind. Code § 34-6-2-51.5 provided:

(a) “Harassment”, for purposes of IC 34-26-5, means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing impermissible contact:

(1) that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress; and

(2) that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress.

(b) “Harassment” does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.

(Subsequently repealed by Pub. Law No. 186-2025, § 175 (eff. July 1, 2025)).²

[13] Ind. Code § 34-26-5-9(h) provides:

A finding that ․ harassment has occurred sufficient to justify the issuance of an order under this section means that a respondent represents a credible threat to the safety of a petitioner or a member of a petitioner's household. Upon a showing of ․ harassment by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall grant relief necessary to bring about a cessation of the violence or the threat of violence․

“The threat posed by the respondent is viewed objectively, and the threat must be credible, meaning plausible or believable.” L.R. b/n/f H.R. v. M.H. b/n/f N.H., 223 N.E.3d 675, 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citation omitted). “Thus, the petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent presently intends to harm the petitioner or the petitioner's family.” Id. “If the petitioner meets their burden, the trial court must issue a protective order and grant relief necessary to end the violence or threat of violence.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

[14] The Indiana Supreme Court recently echoed Chief Judge Altice's observation that, in close cases when the evidence could lead a court to grant or deny a petition, “the trial court is the one to make that call.” S.D., 211 N.E.3d at 498 (quoting S.D. v. G.D., 195 N.E.3d 406, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (Altice, J., dissenting), reh'g denied, trans. granted). “Indeed, our trial courts are far better than appellate courts ‘at weighing evidence and assessing witness credibility.’ ” Id. (quoting Snow v. State, 77 N.E.3d 173, 177 (Ind. 2017)). “And this is particularly true in protective order cases, where our trial judges see and hear the parties interact as they relay details about intensely personal, traumatic events.” Id. “Our review of this evidence on appeal is far less clear from our vantage point in the ‘far corner of the upper deck.’ ” Id. (quoting Snow, 77 N.E.3d at 177 (quoting State v. Keck, 4 N.E.3d 1180, 1185 (Ind. 2014))).

[15] We have little difficulty concluding that K.R. presented evidence showing that G.O. engaged in conduct directed toward her that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and actually caused her to suffer emotional distress. To the extent G.O. attempts to characterize his actions as isolated, non-threatening, or harmless, the trial court found G.O.’s version of events to be “at the very limit of plausibility.” Id. at 66. In discussing G.O.’s credibility and actions, while the court referred to “google maps” and Toyota dealerships, G.O. did not raise an objection, and the court also noted G.O.’s journal notation of his encounter with K.R., his action of traveling to Taylor University to give a gift “to a young lady that [he] ha[d] maybe at best a passing church relationship with,” and “the idea of a college girl being approached by a grown man [ ] she hasn't seen in a while who was rebuffed the last time and had described her as being cold and I want to talk to you privately, there's no foundation in reality,” and it found that a reasonable person would interpret G.O.’s actions “as an implicit threat.” Id. at 66-67. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the evidence supports the court's order prohibiting G.O. from contacting K.R.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's Order for Protection.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   G.O. has not filed a separate motion for oral argument, but his appellant's brief states, on the caption page, “Oral Argument Requested.” Appellant's Brief at 1. We summarily deny his request for oral argument.

2.   This definition is now found at Ind. Code § 34-6-2.1-80 (added by Pub. Law No. 186-2025, § 176 (eff. July 1, 2025)).

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.