Page:Bedtelyon v. State (2022).pdf/11

described sexual conduct.” Appellee’s Br., p. 8. We cannot infer that sexual conduct occurred from such a slim record.

[16]The State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bedtelyon violated his probation when it produced no evidence that he had accessed or viewed obscene videos—that is, videos depicting or describing sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner. See Ind. Code § 35-49-2-1(2). The trial court therefore abused its discretion in finding a violation and revoking four years of Bedtelyon’s suspended sentence.

[17]Reversed and remanded.

 

Najam, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.