Oregon Court of Appeals 05-05-10

by: Abassos • May 4, 2010 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

• Stalking Protective Orders - Unwanted Contacts
• Restitution - Funeral Expenses

=

Stalking Protective Orders===

A stalking protective order requires at least two qualifying unwanted contacts. If the contact is verbal it must:

• instill in the petitioner a fear of imminent physical violence,
• be unequivocal
• be objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts

The verbal contact in this case instilled no such fear, was equivocal and did not seem likely to be followed by unlawful acts. It was simply a pathetic sounding note wondering why a friendship breakup was desired:

It seems painfully clear that you wish to terminate our friendship, and if that's the case I will respect your desire to do so. I will not contact you again. As you know, emotion[al] pain is far worse than physical pain. Reflecting on that it would have been kinder if you would have kicked me in the balls. At first I wasn't angry. I put that behind me as it serves no useful purpose to dwell on it. I love you but I'm not in love with you. I really don't understand, so I'm asking you to explain it to me. What did I do to make you react in such a negative way towards me? Really, I don't have a clue. So at the very least put a note in one of my books and stick it in my mailbox, or if you're feeling courageous enough you can call me. Jerry.

"PS: You know how it feels when people treat you badly. I didn't deserve this Shannon

Non-verbal contact must be of a nature that would cause reasonable people to fear for their safety or that of their loved ones. Here, the only possible qualifying contact was a knock on the petitioner's door. Weak tea. Good reversal. McGinnis v. Bronson

Restitution - Funeral Expenses

The trial court should have imposed restitution for funeral costs in this criminal negligent homicide case. The funeral costs were paid by the victim's brother out of an insurance policy triggered by victim's death. The fact that the brother was no worse off economically than before the victim's death was of no matter to the court. Defendant caused the expenses to be incurred by his criminal behavior and brother incurred the expenses. Therefore, he was entitled to be reimbursed. State v. Ceballos