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

• In 2008, the defendant's then-wife petitioned for an order of protection against him, which was issued and later expired. Months after its expiration, she successfully petitioned for a new, indefinitely extended order. Years later, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating this order after being found near his ex-wife's residence. He was convicted by a jury (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The defendant argued that the underlying order of protection was invalid, there was insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly violated the order, his right to a speedy trial was violated, and the district court erred in admitting certain testimony (para 1).
• Appellee: The State contended that the order of protection was valid, there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's knowing violation, the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, and the district court did not err in admitting the contested testimony (paras 5-31).

Legal Issues

• Whether the underlying order of protection was valid (para 5).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendant knowingly violated the order of protection (para 11).
• Whether the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated (para 17).
• Whether the district court committed error in admitting certain testimony (para 27).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the defendant's misdemeanor conviction for violating an order of protection (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found that even if the district court lacked authority to renew and extend the original order of protection, it did not act without jurisdiction, and thus the renewed order was not invalid. The court also determined there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the defendant knew he was violating the order of protection. Regarding the speedy trial claim, the court concluded that the defendant's right was not violated after analyzing the length of delay, reasons for delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. Lastly, the court held that any error in admitting certain testimony was harmless, given the evidence of guilt and the lack of emphasis on the contested statements during the trial (paras 5-31).