State v. Guzman-Vera

"[W]illfulness can be shown through proof that the defendant knew about the order but chose to ignore it, and then failed to comply with the order’s requirements in that state of elective ignorance: 'A party cannot ignore a court order and then claim that the act of ignoring it is not willful.'" Dept. of Rev. v. Carpet Warehouse, 296 Or 400, 407, 676 P2d 299 (1984); see Pamplin v. Victoria, 138 Or App 563, 566-67, 909 P2d 1245.

Defendant appealed a judgment for violating a restraining order from a family member under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s application of the “willful” standard. On appeal, Defendant argued that the “willful” requirement is met when the defendant has actual awareness of the existence of the orders violated, and therefore, the State could not establish that he knew he was prohibited from being within 100 yards of the residence in violation of the restraining order. In response, the State argued that the record supports the implicit findings of the Defendant’s knowledge. “[W]illfulness can be shown through proof that the defendant knew about the order but chose to ignore it, and then failed to comply with the order’s requirements in that state of elective ignorance: ‘A party cannot ignore a court order and then claim that the act of ignoring it is not willful.’” Dept. of Rev. v. Carpet Warehouse, 296 Or 400, 407, 676 P2d 299 (1984); see Pamplin v. Victoria, 138 Or App 563, 566-67, 909 P2d 1245. The Court found that Defendant proved that his violation of the restraining order was willful because he had the order, he knew what it was, and he chose not to read it. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.