41 results for 'cat:"Harassment"'.
J. Jones finds the prosecutor's comments to the jury during opening statements about common experiences across victims of domestic violence did not constitute misconduct. They did not represent expert testimony, but were anchored to the evidence the state intended to present in its case. Meanwhile, even though the victim did not answer calls made by defendant from an unlisted number, the calls alone were sufficient to convict defendant of stalking after they were traced to the jail at which he was being housed because they violated a protection order obtained by the victim. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Jones, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 2024COA45, Categories: Prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, harassment
J. Boomgaarden finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of felony stalking. Defendant claims there was not enough evidence on the record to support conviction, but entered into the record were numerous texts, repetitive communications and phone calls that contained a "malicious nature." Any rational jury could find these amounted to a specific intent to harass the victim. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Boomgaarden, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: S-23-0236, Categories: harassment
Per curiam, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirms a judgment denying relief to a woman charged with violating a harassment prevention order. The rulings she’s challenging can be addressed through an appeal if she is convicted, but the denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case isn’t appealable until after the trial has concluded. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: SJC-13508, Categories: Speedy Trial, harassment
J. Joyce finds the trial court erred in issuing a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against an individual. There was insufficient evidence that the individual's conduct gave the ex-girlfriend "reasonable apprehension" for her personal safety. Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Joyce, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: A181002, Categories: Evidence, harassment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Aoyagi finds the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s request for a continuance to investigate information provided by the state on the morning of the trial. The trial court relied on “faulty legal premises” when it denied defendant’s motion for a continuance. Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Aoyagi, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: A176595, Categories: Justification, harassment
J. Aoyagi finds the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside his harassment conviction because defendant’s failure to complete sex offender treatment made him a threat to public safety. “Having asserted the right to a hearing and received a hearing, defendant cannot now claim that it was error to hold a hearing.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Aoyagi, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A179424, Categories: Sex Offender, Child Victims, harassment
J. Douglas finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of domestic violence stalking and violating a protective order. The evidence indicates that defendant "subjected the victim to repeated contacts by phone calls and texts, despite her telling him to stop," and even contacted her "after being served with the protection order." The court also notes that the case was not about the content of defendant's statements to the victim, but rather the "persistent, unwelcome contact." Affirmed.
Court: Maine Supreme Court, Judge: Douglas, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 2024ME15, Categories: Domestic Violence, harassment
J. Johnson reverses the defendant's stalking conviction, finding that she did not violate a temporary ex parte harassment restraining order by calling the protected person on her cell phone, since the restraining order had been expired for nine days at the time of the calls and no further harassment restraining orders had since been issued. Without sufficient evidence to prove that the harassment restraining order was violated, there is also not sufficient evidence to prove stalking. Reversed.
Court: Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Judge: Johnson, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: A22-0079, Categories: Criminal Procedure, harassment
J. Feuer finds that the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for substitution of counsel to defend him on a stalking charge. His previous requests were denied because his counsel of choice was not prepared, but his new counsel said he was ready and the trial court put efficiency ahead of his constitutional right. His challenge to the guilty verdict fails under the weight of the evidence against him, but he is entitled to a new trial with his counsel of choice. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Feuer, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: B322762, Categories: Due Process, harassment
J. Clark finds that the lower court improperly convicted defendant of harassment for calling his neighbor's employer and falsely accusing him of exposing himself to children. The state improperly admitted defendant's telephone records into evidence without properly establishing them as business records. Reversed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Clark, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: ED110897, Categories: Evidence, harassment
J. Hellman finds the trial court properly ordered defendant to pay restitution for the victim’s chiropractic treatment, copays and lost wages. “Evidence supports a finding that defendant’s criminal conduct was the factual cause of [victim’s] symptoms” which arose as a result of "an abusive and traumatic romantic relationship." Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Hellman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: A178025, Categories: Evidence, harassment
J. Hellman finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for two counts of harassment constituting domestic violence. “There is little likelihood that the jury might not have been persuaded that [defendant] was at least criminally negligent” for pulling the victim’s leg and punching a windshield. Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Hellman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: A176420, Categories: Domestic Violence, harassment
J. Badding finds that defendant was properly convicted of second-degree harassment following a road rage incident because defendant was not being threatened when he pulled out a gun and told the victim he was going to kill him. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Badding, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 22-1755, Categories: Evidence, harassment
J. Shorr finds the trial court properly admitted expert testimony describing defendant’s past conduct that helped convict defendant of harassment. “That evidence is relevant to the expert’s opinion and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: A176222, Categories: Evidence, harassment
J. Panella finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant for harassment after she anonymously texted the other mothers of cheerleaders on her daughter’s competitive cheerleading squad images of their children, criticizing their behavior. The mother failed to raise whether her trial counsel had properly advised her about testifying on her own behalf before the lower court and thus, cannot do so on appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Panella, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: J-S18007-23, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Sentencing, harassment
J. Tabor finds that defendant was properly convicted of felony stalking since the prosecutor’s references to defendant's "obsession" with an 18-year-old girl across the street constituted fair comments on the overwhelming evidence of his behavior. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tabor, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 22-1978, Categories: Evidence, harassment
J. Watkins finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial after he was found guilty of misdemeanor harassment in connection with aggressive and threatening e-mails he sent to staff at a veterinary hospital that terminated him as a client and reported to a state animal services agency that he was neglecting his dog he brought into the hospital with rotting sores and maggots on her skin. In part because defendant has failed to disprove that the weight of the evidence supported his conviction and prove the court erred by admitting into evidence pictures of his dog's condition, and in part because his double jeopardy and ineffective assistance claims also fail, the trial court's decision stands. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Watkins, Filed On: October 2, 2023, Case #: A23A0793, Categories: Evidence, Ineffective Assistance, harassment
J. Shorr finds the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on stalking and telephone harassment charges. “The contacts were not protected expressions” and “the state’s evidence was sufficient to satisfy the Rangel standard.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: A175405, Categories: Constitution, harassment
J. Rodriguez finds that evidence did not support defendant's conviction for stalking a politician and his family. Though his communications made disconcerting references to the politician's family, he was engaged in constitutionally protected speech when he attended an open house at the politician's home, made comments on Facebook and mailed a letter to the politician. In context, a reasonable person would not find that the communications, which were focused on a school bond measure and corruption in local politics, were a true threat. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: A163458, Categories: harassment, Civil Rights
[Consolidated] J. Wright finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for harassment of a public servant and assault on a peace officer. Officers responded to a report of a naked, belligerent man, covered in blood. Defendant proceeded to spit on and punch one of the officers, which was recorded on both officers' body cams. The officers testified at trial that they believed defendant was on PCP, which defendant claims had been "laced" into a joint he had smoked, without his knowing. Even if defendant had properly requested a jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, preserving his appellate complaint, the trial court still correctly denied the instruction as it was not raised by the evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wright , Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00226-CR, Categories: Assault, harassment, Jury Instructions
J. Kamins finds the trial court properly denied post-conviction relief for defendant, convicted of coercion, harassment and numerous other crimes against his wife in 2010. New evidence “does not undermine the finding that petitioner injured the victim nor that those injuries were ‘serious’ for purposes of the crime of assault, which does not require long-term disability.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Kamins, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: A177335, Categories: Sentencing, Assault, harassment
J. Foley finds the lower court properly convicted defendant of invasion of privacy for his second violation of a protective order and sentenced him to one year in prison with all but 120 days suspended to probation. While defendant alleges false statements were made regarding probable cause for his original charges, the instant court finds his argument is without merit, and his appellate brief failed to fully develop a legal argument. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Foley, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 23ACR832, Categories: Evidence, Restraining Order, harassment