<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>CONTEMPT OF COURT—VIOLATION OF FAPA ORDER: Defendant, who was prohibited<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>from contacting his ex-wife under FAPA order, willfully violated the order by sending her<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>personal messages under the guise of a <i>pro se </i>pleading in a separate pending divorce case.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>State v. Crombie</i></b>, 267 Or App __, __ P3d __ (December 24, 2014) (Clackamas)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(AAG Michael Shin). Defendant was held in contempt for violating a restraining order issued<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">under the Family Abuse Protection Act (FAPA) that prohibited him from contacting his ex-wife.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The trial court (Judge pro tem Kenneth Stewart) found that he violated the restraining order by<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">sending his ex-wife a copy of an “Addendem [<i>sic</i>] to Response and Counterclaim,” which he<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">filed in a separate pending divorce proceeding, because the document contained his personal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">messages to his ex-wife. The trial court determined that although the document “seems to be a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">pleading,” it constituted prohibited contact because it contained his direct communications to his<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ex-wife, including ending with: “Bye Baby. : ) I will ALWAYS love you! Thank you for every<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">second!.” On appeal, defendant claimed that the trial court erred in denying his motion for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">judgment of acquittal because the restraining order contained an exception for serving documents<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“related to a court… case” and the addendum was a court filing that fit within the exception and,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">additionally, there was insufficient evidence for a finding that he violated the restraining order<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">willfully.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Held</i>: Affirmed (Ortega, P.J.). The trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">judgment of acquittal. Defendant’s interpretation of the exception in the restraining order for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">serving court documents “would allow defendant to easily subvert the intentions of the order,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">which are to prevent him from communicating with the victim.” The addendum was directed at<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">his ex-wife, not the divorce court, and there is little doubt that had he expressed the content of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the addendum in a letter sent directly to his ex-wife that it would have violated the restraining<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">order. “Defendant may not accomplish the same aim by expressing those contents in a pleading,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">including some statements addressed to the court, and filing it in the court proceeding.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152462.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152462.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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>