State v. Balero

Revealing personal information about another person to a third party others does not constitute “interference” for purposes of the FAPA. State v. Trivitt, 247 Or. App. 199, 203, 268 P.3d 765 (2011).

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment finding him in contempt of court for violating a restraining order issued under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s conclusion that Defendant sending an email to his ex-wife’s employer claiming she committed theft and fraud constituted “interference” for the purposes of FAPA and found defendant in contempt of court. On appeal, Defendant argued that under State v. Trivitt, his conduct was not the type of interference that FAPA prohibits. The state argued that Trivitt is not controlling because it did not exclude “non-physical interference” as a form of interference. Revealing personal information about another person to a third party others does not constitute “interference” for purposes of the FAPA. State v. Trivitt, 247 Or. App. 199, 203, 268 P.3d 765 (2011). The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by finding Defendant violated the FAPA order because Defendant’s email to his ex-wife’s employer only revealed personal information and did not constitute interference between his ex-wife and her employer. Reversed.