<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>VIOLATION OF A STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER/CONTEMPT: Letter did not<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>qualify as an “object” sent to complainant because it was a “written communication.”<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>State v. Meek</i></b>, 266 Or App __, __ P3d __ (October 29, 2014) (Lane) (AAG Becca<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Auten). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The trial court issued a stalking protective order (SPO) against defendant, barring him<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">from “any contacts” with his ex-girlfriend, M. Defendant then sent a letter to M, apologizing for<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">any harm he had caused her. As a result, the state charged defendant with violating the SPO and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">contempt of court. The original charging instrument alleged that defendant had violated the SPO<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">by sending a “written communication” to M. The state subsequently filed an amended charging<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">instrument, alleging instead that defendant had sent an “object” to M’s home.
<i>When an<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">individual is charged with violating an SPO by way of written communication, the state must<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">prove that the individual’s conduct “created reasonable apprehension regarding the personal<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">safety” of the complainant. When an individual is instead charged with violating an SPO by way<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">of sending an object, there is no “reasonable apprehension” requirement. Here, the state did not<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">allege or prove that defendant’s conduct caused reasonable apprehension.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Defendant filed a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the letter was a “written communication” and that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">the state was therefore required to show reasonable apprehension. The trial court (Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Josephine Mooney) denied the motion. A jury found defendant guilty of violating an SPO, and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">the court found defendant in contempt of court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: Reversed (Haselton, C. J.). [1] Despite the statutory text, “the totality of the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">statutory design and the legislative history demonstrates that a ‘written communication,’ is not an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">‘object’ for purposes of ORS 163.750(1),” the statute governing violation of an SPO. “Thus,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">defendant’s . . . letter to M and her family was not an ‘object’ for purposes of the crime of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">violating a stalking protective order.” Because the state alleged that defendant had delivered an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">“object” to M’s home and the state did not prove that defendant delivered any item other than the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">letter to M’s home, the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">[2] “The same is true with respect to the contempt charge, which, similarly, was predicated<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">solely on the delivery of an ‘object.’”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151149.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151149.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Note</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">: The Court of Appeals’ reversal of the contempt charge is something of a mystery,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">because the definition of “object” that applies to the SPO violation statute does not apply to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">contempt—as the state argued in its brief on appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>