Jury Finds Van Hawk Guilty Of Three Stalking Charges
October 10, 2024 at 5:04 p.m.
After about two hours of deliberation, a 12-person jury found Scotty Van Hawk guilty on three stalking charges.
Van Hawk, 52, of 2906 E. Armstrong Road, Leesburg, will be sentenced at 9 a.m. Nov. 4. His bond was revoked and he was remanded to the custody of the Kosciusko County Sheriff.
The case continued on Thursday, Oct. 10, with Van Hawk continuing direct examination of himself. He immediately began his testimony by attempting to bring up incidents which were consolidated into the case brought for trial.
Prosecutor Brad Voelz objected and said Van Hawk was attempting to confuse and mislead the jury, while also trying to create a conspiracy argument. He immediately requested the court terminate Van Hawk's direct examination.
Van Hawk also tried to testify about a SWAT incident involving the Kosciusko County Sheriff's Office and said it was related to his alibi. Kosciusko Circuit Court Judge Michael Reed said Van Hawk had not filed a notice of alibi and that no evidence could be presented on that.
At one point, Van Hawk asked for Voelz to present him with a timestamp of the allegations. Upon reviewing the information, Van Hawk said the stalking charge stemming from 2020 was untrue since he lived in Michigan. He also alleged he didn't understand an allegation from 2021 and that the start date for the 2023 charge was untrue since he was incarcerated during the start date.
He argued the state had not submitted any evidence showing he had any type of illegal contact with the victim, let alone stalking.
Both Reed and Voelz had to interrupt Van Hawk multiple times through his direct examination, reminding him of what he can and cannot discuss with the jury.
Toward the conclusion of his examination, he attempted to argue that he was forced to represent himself at trial and alleged the victim was violent toward him. Van Hawk also encouraged the jurors to ask him questions since he hadn't had enough time to present evidence.
In a brief cross-examination, Voelz asked Van Hawk if a physical custody order involving the victim and her children angered him. Van Hawk said it did not.
When asked about various threatening texts he sent to the victim, he said a couple of the messages were about the children. Van Hawk also testified that he did not create a website or copy the victim's diary.
He further stated the texts he sent to the victim had been modified.
Voelz asked for the termination of redirect by Van Hawk per Indiana Rule of Evidence 611. Redirect was terminated.
Several jurors submitted questions, but none were admissible.
Van Hawk's testimony was the only evidence presented on behalf of the defense.
In his closing argument, Voelz described Van Hawk's behavior as "repetitive and escalating."
"The texts are only a representative sample of the tone and context of Scotty Van Hawk's communication and harassment," said Voelz.
He emphasized Van Hawk's messages to the victim being gaslighting in nature, noting the messages he frequently sent to the victim were in violation of protective orders.
"It's controlling and harassing, and it escalated to concerning and worrisome," said Voelz. "This behavior continued on and on and on while (the victim) followed the guidelines to keep the kids safe. Scotty Van Hawk was repeatedly told to stop this behavior."
Voelz also asked the jury to consider text evidence from Van Hawk where he admitted to creating a website about the victim and bragging about it.
"During all this time, (the victim) responded appropriately," said Voelz. "She went to her lawyer, the courts, her guardian ad litem. Scotty's continuous, relentless bombardment of threats and lies seemingly never stopped. This was repeated, continuous, relentless harassment which made (the victim) feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, and terrorized."
Van Hawk said the text messages presented by Voelz as evidence were "modified and printed on paper." He attempted to discuss information related to a stalking statute that was unrelated to his case in particular.
"The level of crimes being alleged never happened," said Van Hawk. "You're being led to believe things that aren't true. (The victim) has no reason to be fearful of anything."
Van Hawk's closing argument was eventually terminated because of his refusal to follow court orders.
"Stalking doesn't necessarily mean a physical presence," said Voelz in his final statement. "It can mean phone calls, lawsuits, cease and desist orders, repeated harassing text messages ... it's intimidating, threatening, terrible ... it's stalking."
Latest News
E-Editions
After about two hours of deliberation, a 12-person jury found Scotty Van Hawk guilty on three stalking charges.
Van Hawk, 52, of 2906 E. Armstrong Road, Leesburg, will be sentenced at 9 a.m. Nov. 4. His bond was revoked and he was remanded to the custody of the Kosciusko County Sheriff.
The case continued on Thursday, Oct. 10, with Van Hawk continuing direct examination of himself. He immediately began his testimony by attempting to bring up incidents which were consolidated into the case brought for trial.
Prosecutor Brad Voelz objected and said Van Hawk was attempting to confuse and mislead the jury, while also trying to create a conspiracy argument. He immediately requested the court terminate Van Hawk's direct examination.
Van Hawk also tried to testify about a SWAT incident involving the Kosciusko County Sheriff's Office and said it was related to his alibi. Kosciusko Circuit Court Judge Michael Reed said Van Hawk had not filed a notice of alibi and that no evidence could be presented on that.
At one point, Van Hawk asked for Voelz to present him with a timestamp of the allegations. Upon reviewing the information, Van Hawk said the stalking charge stemming from 2020 was untrue since he lived in Michigan. He also alleged he didn't understand an allegation from 2021 and that the start date for the 2023 charge was untrue since he was incarcerated during the start date.
He argued the state had not submitted any evidence showing he had any type of illegal contact with the victim, let alone stalking.
Both Reed and Voelz had to interrupt Van Hawk multiple times through his direct examination, reminding him of what he can and cannot discuss with the jury.
Toward the conclusion of his examination, he attempted to argue that he was forced to represent himself at trial and alleged the victim was violent toward him. Van Hawk also encouraged the jurors to ask him questions since he hadn't had enough time to present evidence.
In a brief cross-examination, Voelz asked Van Hawk if a physical custody order involving the victim and her children angered him. Van Hawk said it did not.
When asked about various threatening texts he sent to the victim, he said a couple of the messages were about the children. Van Hawk also testified that he did not create a website or copy the victim's diary.
He further stated the texts he sent to the victim had been modified.
Voelz asked for the termination of redirect by Van Hawk per Indiana Rule of Evidence 611. Redirect was terminated.
Several jurors submitted questions, but none were admissible.
Van Hawk's testimony was the only evidence presented on behalf of the defense.
In his closing argument, Voelz described Van Hawk's behavior as "repetitive and escalating."
"The texts are only a representative sample of the tone and context of Scotty Van Hawk's communication and harassment," said Voelz.
He emphasized Van Hawk's messages to the victim being gaslighting in nature, noting the messages he frequently sent to the victim were in violation of protective orders.
"It's controlling and harassing, and it escalated to concerning and worrisome," said Voelz. "This behavior continued on and on and on while (the victim) followed the guidelines to keep the kids safe. Scotty Van Hawk was repeatedly told to stop this behavior."
Voelz also asked the jury to consider text evidence from Van Hawk where he admitted to creating a website about the victim and bragging about it.
"During all this time, (the victim) responded appropriately," said Voelz. "She went to her lawyer, the courts, her guardian ad litem. Scotty's continuous, relentless bombardment of threats and lies seemingly never stopped. This was repeated, continuous, relentless harassment which made (the victim) feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, and terrorized."
Van Hawk said the text messages presented by Voelz as evidence were "modified and printed on paper." He attempted to discuss information related to a stalking statute that was unrelated to his case in particular.
"The level of crimes being alleged never happened," said Van Hawk. "You're being led to believe things that aren't true. (The victim) has no reason to be fearful of anything."
Van Hawk's closing argument was eventually terminated because of his refusal to follow court orders.
"Stalking doesn't necessarily mean a physical presence," said Voelz in his final statement. "It can mean phone calls, lawsuits, cease and desist orders, repeated harassing text messages ... it's intimidating, threatening, terrible ... it's stalking."