AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was on probation following a plea agreement related to an assault with a deadly weapon charge. The Defendant violated his probation by making prohibited contact with the victim of the assault. The Defendant argued that the contact was not willful because he believed the restraining order against him had been dismissed by the victim, who had initiated contact with him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the contact with the victim was not willful, believing it was not prohibited due to the victim dismissing a restraining order and initiating contact. Also argued that he was improperly prevented from cross-examining the victim about her alleged abuse of the court system through restraining orders, which impaired his ability to confront the State’s case.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's contact with the victim was willful, violating his probation.
• Whether the Defendant was improperly prevented from cross-examining the victim, impairing his ability to confront the State’s case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's contact with the victim to be willful, despite his belief that it was permissible, as the probation violation was based on his plea agreement, not a restraining order. The Court also found no indication that the contact was beyond the Defendant's control. Regarding the Defendant's inability to cross-examine the victim about her alleged pattern of abusing restraining orders, the Court remained unpersuaded that this impaired his ability to refute the State’s case. The Court concluded that even if the testimony was erroneously excluded, the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice as sufficient evidence of prohibited contact was presented without the victim's testimony (paras 1-4).