State v. Nguyen

A defendant who seeks to challenge a conviction under ORS 163.750 for violating a stalking protective order on free speech grounds must first successfully attack the underlying protective order.

This case is before the Court of Appeals on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated the prior opinion in light of State v. Ryan. In the original Nguyen decision, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the argument that text messages in violation of a Stalking Protective Order were protected free speech under the Oregon Constitution. However, the Supreme Court in Ryan II held that a defendant who seeks to challenge a conviction for violating a Stalking Protective Order on free speech grounds must first successfully attack the underlying protective order. Because Defendant in this case did not bring a successful challenge to the underlying protective order, he cannot challenge his conviction on free speech grounds. The trial court correctly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.