State v. Boyum

• Decision Date: 12 October 2022
• Docket Number: A175090
• Citation: 322 Or.App. 365
• Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JACOB TODD BOYUM, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

322 Or.App. 365

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JACOB TODD BOYUM, Defendant-Appellant.

A175090

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 12, 2022

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted August 23, 2022

Crook County Circuit Court 20CN01594; Michael R. McLane, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Eric Seepe, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

1

[322 Or.App. 366] MOONEY, J.

Defendant appeals from a general judgment of contempt. The circuit court found that defendant "violated the no-contact terms of the protective order in 20PO02632 by initiating contact with the protected individual, [T], through a third party," defendant's mother. It imposed a suspended jail sentence and placed defendant on bench probation. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's finding of contempt, arguing that the state failed to establish that he willfully violated the restraining order. In particular, defendant disputes that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that his mother called T at his request to get information for him. We conclude that the trial court did not err, and we affirm.

ORS 33.015(2) defines "contempt of court" to include "the following acts, done willfully":

''***** "(b) Disobedience of, resistance to or obstruction of the court's authority, process, orders or judgments."

To establish punitive contempt, the state must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a valid court order exists, that the defendant knew of the order, and that the defendant voluntarily failed to comply with it." State v. Simmons, 314 Or.App. 507, 511-12, 499 P.3d 127 (2021). "[W]illfully" in this context means "intentionally and with knowledge that the act * * * was forbidden conduct." Id. at 512. Defendant asserts that the state failed to prove that he acted "willfully".

Because defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for the court to find that he willfully violated the FAPA restraining order, we proceed as if we were reviewing the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal. Id. at 511. "We review...