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 case involves the Defendant, Marcello Silva, who was convicted of two counts of violating an order of protection against the Victim, with whom he has three children. A non-mutual order of protection was issued against Silva, prohibiting him from various forms of contact with the Victim. Despite this, Silva made two phone calls to the Victim's residence from the Lincoln County Detention Center, which were refused by the Victim but logged by the detention center. The order of protection also included a custody order, which expired on July 9, 2007, but Silva believed this expiration applied to the entire order of protection.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying jury instructions on mistake of fact and the elements of the crime, claimed Section 40-13-6 is void for vagueness, and contended the district court erred in allowing an officer to testify as an expert.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the jury instructions properly tracked the elements of the statute, argued Section 40-13-6 is not void for vagueness, and asserted the officer's testimony was permissible and properly preserved for appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s jury instructions on mistake of fact and the elements of the crime.
• Whether Section 40-13-6 is void for vagueness.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing an officer to testify as an expert.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Michael E. Vigil concurring, held that:
  The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s mistake of fact or elements instructions because the statute does not include a knowledge element for the crime.
  Section 40-13-6 is not void for vagueness as applied to Defendant. The statute provides sufficient clarity to prevent arbitrary enforcement and allows individuals of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct is prohibited.
  The issue of whether Officer Gallegos testified as an expert was not properly preserved for appeal, as the Defendant did not make a specific objection regarding expert testimony at trial.