Timothy Lamont Akbar, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Timothy Lamont Akbar appeals his convictions for three counts of invasion of privacy, as Class A misdemeanors. Akbar raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Akbar and Jocelyn Hurst dated from 2019 to 2024. On April 9, 2024, after their relationship ended, a court issued a no-contact order that prohibited Akbar from “having contact with Jocelyn M. Hurst in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or any other way, directly or indirectly[.]” Tr. at 59. The order also prohibited Akbar “from visiting any location where he knew Jocelyn M. Hurst to be located.” Id.

[3] On August 30 and 31, Hurst received ten phone calls from several different phone numbers. Hurst answered one of the phone calls and recognized Akbar's voice. Hurst was with her friend, Demetrius Green, when she received the call. Green heard Hurst talking “with her ex” about how “he shouldn't be calling[.]” Id. at 90. After the phone call, Hurst reported the incident to the police.

[4] In the early morning hours of September 2, while Hurst was sleeping, she received an alert on her phone from her home security alarm. Hurst “happened to glance at the camera” and saw someone at her front door that she “thought” was Akbar. Id. at 68, 72. The alarm company called the police, but the police did not see anyone when they arrived. Hurst decided to stay the rest of the night at a friend's house. While she was packing to leave, she was unable to find her keys.

[5] Later that evening, Hurst was at her house with Green, who was helping to change her locks. While Green was working, Akbar approached and “ask[ed] about Jocelyn.” Id. at 92. Green then “physically stopped” Akbar from entering the home. Id. at 93. At around 6:00 p.m., Hurst looked out her window and saw Akbar. Hurst then received a phone call from Akbar, who said he wanted to speak to Hurst. Green watched Akbar “deposit[ ] something into the mailbox.” Id. at 95. After Akbar left, Hurst and Green discovered Hurst's keys in her mailbox. Hurst then received several more phone calls from Akbar.

[6] The State charged Akbar with three counts of invasion of privacy, as Class A misdemeanors. Following a jury trial, the jury found Akbar guilty as charged. The court then sentenced him to concurrent terms of 365 days, with 185 days suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Akbar contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[8] To prove that Akbar committed invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to demonstrate that he knowingly or intentionally violated an order issued under Indiana Code Section 35-33-8-3.2. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(11). Akbar does not dispute that there was a valid no-contact order issued under Section 35-33-8-3.2. Rather, he contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he was the person who had contacted Hurst on the three occasions. We cannot agree.

[9] As to the first violation on August 30-31, Hurst testified that she received numerous phone calls from various numbers, that she answered one of the calls, and that she recognized Akbar's voice on the other end of the phone. In addition, Green testified that he was with Hurst when she answered the call and that he heard her talking to “her ex” about how “he shouldn't be calling.” Tr. at 90. That evidence is sufficient to show that Akbar violated the no-contact order by calling Hurst on August 30 or 31.

[10] Regarding the violations on September 2, Hurst testified that she was awoken by her alarm, that she checked on her security cameras, and that she saw someone she believed was Akbar. Once police officers arrived, Akbar was gone, but Hurst's keys were missing. Then, later that day, Akbar went to Hurst's home, where he spoke with Green about Hurst. Green stopped Akbar from entering the home, but Hurst was able to see him through a window. Green then watched Akbar deposit something in Hurst's mailbox. After Akbar left, Green and Hurst found Hurst's keys in the mailbox.

[11] Given that Hurst and Green both personally observed Akbar at her house on the evening of September 2 and that Green watched Akbar return Hurst's keys that had gone missing earlier in the day, a reasonable jury could readily conclude that Akbar was the person who had arrived earlier in the day on September 2, took her keys, and then returned them that evening. That evidence supports the jury's verdict that Akbar violated the no-contact order twice by visiting Hurst's house on two separate occasions on September 2.

[12] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Akbar's convictions. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.