State v. Butler

When a defendant repeatedly creates new profiles shortly after being blocked by a victim, and the content of the messages posted by those profiles could lead to the inference that it was more likely than not that defendant was attempting to contact the victim, the conduct likely amounts to contact for purposes of conditions of no-contact. See State v. Crombie, 267 Or App 705, 711, 341 P3d 841 (2014).

Defendant appealed a judgment holding that he violated a no-contact provision contained within his probation conditions. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that Defendant’s postings regarding and addressing the victim constituted contact for purposes of his probation conditions. Defendant argued that his probation conditions did not prohibit speaking publicly about the victim, Defendant further argued that posting on Facebook constitutes public speech. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s posts were created to communicate with the victim. The fact that defendant repeatedly created new profiles shortly after R blocked him, combined with the content of the messages on those profiles, could lead to the inference that it was more likely than not that defendant was attempting to contact R. See State v. Crombie, 267 Or App 705, 711, 341 P3d 841 (2014). Affirmed.