Page:Bedtelyon v. State (2022).pdf/3

 videos, Bedtelyon’s probation officer determined they were obscene and therefore violated the terms of Bedtelyon’s probation. The court agreed and revoked his probation. Id. at 201. Bedtelyon now appeals.

Bedtelyon argues the court erroneously revoked his probation because the YouTube videos he watched were not obscene as defined by statute. A trial court may revoke a person’s probation if the State proves by a preponderance of evidence that the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. Phipps v. State, 177 N.E.3d 123, 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a), (f)). We review a probation revocation for abuse of discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). In making this determination, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. (quoting Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008)).

Though Bedtelyon does not make arguments related to freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution inevitably loom large in discussions of obscenity. Obscenity belongs to a limited class of speech that is not guaranteed state or federal protection. Fordyce v. State, 569 N.E.2d 357, 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (“[O]bscenity was not intended to be cloaked with the protection of the free