In Washington, the courts will often issue no-contact orders in domestic violence cases. If a person subject to a no-contact order subsequently violates its terms, they may be charged with additional crimes. As discussed in a recent Washington domestic violence case, the State must offer sufficient evidence to support convictions for violating no-contact orders, and if they do not, the conviction can be challenged. If you are accused of a domestic violence offense, it is wise to speak to a Tacoma domestic violence attorney about your options.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was initially charged with domestic violence crimes after the victim called 911 twice, reporting that the defendant was threatening to come to her apartment. Following this, a pretrial no-contact order was imposed on the defendant. Despite the no-contact order, the defendant called the victim multiple times from jail. After the original charges were dismissed, the State filed new charges against the defendant for witness tampering and violating the pretrial no-contact order.
The defendant was found guilty of multiple charges, including numerous counts of witness tampering, violating a domestic violence no-contact order, and attempted violation of a no-contact order. The defendant challenged his conviction, raising several issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence for violating the no-contact order, the admission of hearsay statements, the denial of his request for a mental health sentencing alternative, and the imposition of a victim penalty assessment.
Evidence Sufficient to Support Convictions for Violating No-Contact Orders
After reviewing the defendant’s claims, the court upheld the trial court’s rulings. Specifically, the court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for violating the no-contact order, as the order was not invalidated but recalled when the underlying charges were dismissed. The court also determined that the validity of the no-contact order was not an essential element of the crime.
Regarding the admission of the 911 calls, the court agreed with the trial court that the calls qualified as excited utterances and were, therefore, admissible under the hearsay exception. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this evidentiary decision.
Moreover, regarding the denial of the mental health sentencing alternative, the appellate court found that the trial court did not err in its decision. The trial court had considered the defendant’s mental health conditions but found that he did not demonstrate a sufficient connection between his conditions and the crimes.
Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had ample opportunities for treatment in the past and that his request for a mental health sentencing alternative did not align with the intent of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Confer with a Seasoned Tacoma Defense Attorney
One of the factors in denying defendant’s request for a mental health treatment alternative was his unwillingness to treat. If his defense attorney had encouraged him to entered mental health treatment BEFORE the sentencing then many of the court’s reasons for NOT granting the alternative would have been removed or reduced. The attorneys at Smith & White, PLLC could have put this defendant in a much better position to succeed.
The Washington courts strictly regard no-contact orders, which means that people convicted of violating them can face significant penalties. If you are accused of a crime of domestic violence, it is smart to confer with an attorney. The seasoned Tacoma domestic violence defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White can evaluate your charges and aid you in fighting to protect your rights. You can contact us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to set up a meeting.