- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Stalking Protective Order
- Date Filed: 09-27-2017
- Case #: A160886
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & James, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for violating a stalking protective order. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that State failed to prove that “waiting outside” of his daughters’ school for mere seconds, while the staff remotely unlocked the door, met the definition of “waiting outside” prohibited by the stalking protective order. State conceded that Defendant was not under an absolute prohibition from entering his daughter's school, but maintained that Defendant's actions constituted "waiting outside." Per ORS 163.705(1), it is a crime to "intentionally or recklessly [engage] in conduct prohibited by [a stalking protective order.]" The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because Defendant’s “incidental and momentary pause” taken before entering the school was not the type of “waiting outside” prohibited by the stalking protective order. Furthermore, neither the protective order nor the parenting plan prohibited Defendant from contacting or entering his daughters’ school when his ex-wife and daughters were not on the premises. Reversed.