State v. Westom

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
  • Date Filed: 06-08-2022
  • Case #: A173956
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Kistler, S.J.; Mooney, P.J.; Lagesen, C.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

While the dictionary “establishes that, at its core, contact [used as a noun] involves a direct communication or a meeting,” “contact” can, in context, have a broader meaning. Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516. Knowledge, proximity, and the duration of the contact are factors to consider in assessing the term’s meaning.

Defendant was found in violation of the no-contact condition of her probation (whereby she was to “have no contact with” the victim’s mother) after both parties coincidentally visited the same beach and Defendant chose to play in the water in direct view of victim’s mother. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s finding that she contacted the victim’s mother, arguing that the incident did not rise to the level of “contact” because there was no verbal communication. While the dictionary “establishes that, at its core, contact [used as a noun] involves a direct communication or a meeting,” “contact” can, in context, have a broader meaning. Boyd v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 516. Knowledge, proximity, and the duration of the contact are factors to consider in assessing the term’s meaning. The Court determined that Defendant’s interpretation of the no-contact condition was too narrow to serve the intended purpose of the agreement. Because Defendant knowingly chose to move into and remain in the immediate visual presence of the victim’s mother, this nonverbal contact was a violation of her probation. Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top