State v. Harrison

“[T]o prove contempt, the state must establish the existence of a valid court order, the defendant’s knowledge of that order, and the defendant’s willful noncompliance with that order.” State v. Beleke, 287 Or App 417, 421, 403 P3d 481, rev den, 362 Or 208 (2017).

Defendant appealed judgment of being found in contempt of court for violating a restraining order. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was not enough evidence to establish Defendant had intentionally contacted the petitioner of the restraining order through a third party. In response, the State argued that the State had provided adequate evidence to convince a reasonable jury that Defendant had contacted the petitioner through a third party. "[T]o prove contempt, the state must establish the existence of a valid court order, the defendant's knowledge of that order, and the defendant's willful noncompliance with that order." State v. Beleke, 287 Or App 417, 421, 403 P3d 481, rev den, 362 Or 208 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that Defendant's use of a bus driver to communicate with the petitioner constituted an intentional action, and that the State had submitted enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury. Affirmed.