No Contact Orders for Domestic Violence in Washington

It is not uncommon for the Washington courts to issue no contact orders in domestic violence cases. When a person subject to a no contact order shares a child with the individual they are prohibited from contacting, it can make it difficult for the person to exercise their right to parent.

People subject to no-contact orders can be charged with domestic violence crimes if they violate the terms of the orders. Generally, such violations must be willful. The prosecution can demonstrate a person’s actions were willful by showing they acted knowingly.

As discussed in a recent Washington assault case, though, a person must show that a no contact order substantially interferes with their parental rights, not that it merely makes it inconvenient to parent, in order to obtain a modification. If you are charged with a domestic violence offense, it is advisable to talk to a Tacoma domestic violence attorney about your options.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant was in a dating relationship with the victim, with whom he shared a child. On October 21, 2020, the defendant threatened the victim to obtain her car keys and was later involved in a car accident while driving her car, exhibiting signs of intoxication. He was arrested, and the State charged him with second-degree robbery with a domestic violence aggravator and misdemeanor DUI. Subsequently, on November 13, 2020, the State imposed a no-contact order protecting the victim. On June 14, 2021, the victim allowed the defendant to visit for their child’s birthday, during which he assaulted her and damaged her cell phone. The State amended the charges on October 3, 2022, to include a felony violation of the no contact order with a domestic violence aggravator.

Allegedly, the defendant pled guilty to the charges under a plea agreement. During sentencing, the State highlighted the defendant’s violent history and sought a high-range sentence and a continued no contact order. The defendant’s counsel argued for leniency, citing his substance abuse and emotional struggles, and requested a reduced no contact order to facilitate his relationship with his child. Ultimately, the court imposed a mid-range sentence of 73.5 months and a five-year no contact order prohibiting any contact with the victim. The defendant then moved to challenge the no contact order.

No Contact Orders in Domestic Violence Cases

The court reviewed the case for abuse of discretion, particularly focusing on the no contact order’s impact on the defendant’s fundamental right to parent his child. The court noted the trial court’s broad authority to impose crime-related prohibitions, including no contact orders, for the maximum sentence term.

However, it also recognized the defendant’s constitutional right to parent. The court emphasized that conditions interfering with fundamental rights must be reasonably necessary to meet the State’s essential needs. The defendant argued that the no contact order unjustifiably restricted his ability to coordinate with the victim for child visitation.

The court distinguished this case from similar cases by noting that the no contact order allowed third-party contact for legal matters, and there was no indication the defendant sought a parenting plan. The court found that the logistical inconvenience did not justify modifying the no contact order.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court had carefully considered the defendant’s and the victim’s concerns and found no abuse of discretion in the imposed no contact order, which aimed to protect the victim while minimally interfering with the defendant’s parental rights. As such, it affirmed the no contact order.

Prosecution of Willful Violations of No Contact Orders in Washington

It is reported that the defendant was subject to a domestic violence no-contact order that prohibited him from coming within 1,000 feet of his girlfriend’s residence, school, workplace, or any known location. The defendant signed this order. In July 2022, a funeral home reported a trespassing incident involving two individuals. When a police officer arrived, he found the defendant and his girlfriend sitting on a curb five to eight feet apart. The defendant had blisters on his face and an open wound on his arm.

It is alleged that the officer, who was concerned about the defendant’s health, provided him with water and transported him to the hospital. Subsequently, the State charged the defendant with a felony violation of the no-contact order. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the information was constitutionally deficient because it did not include the element of willfulness and that the State had not presented sufficient evidence of a willful violation. The trial court denied the motion, equating “knowing” with “willful,” and the jury found the defendant guilty. He then moved to challenge the verdict.

Willful Violations of No Contact Orders

Prompted by the defendant’s assertions, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the charging information and the evidence presented at trial. The defendant contended that the omission of “willfulness” from the charging document rendered it constitutionally defective. The court noted that under Washington law, a charging document must include all essential elements of a crime. While the no-contact order statute requires a willful violation, another applicable statute states that “willful” is satisfied if a person acts “knowingly.”

As such, the court found that the charging document’s use of “knowing” was adequate because, under statutory interpretation, “knowing” and “willful” are synonymous and concluded that the information was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges.

Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court upheld the conviction, determining that a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the defendant and his girlfriend were seated next to each other, which implied willful contact, especially given their relationship and his prior violations. The court also addressed the jury instruction, stating that the instructions provided, which included definitions of “knowledge” and “intent,” were appropriate and allowed both parties to argue their theories of the case effectively.

The Voluntary Intoxication Defense in No Contact Order Violations

In a recent Washington opinion, the court discussed the defense of voluntary intoxication as it pertains to a criminal defendant’s mental state but eventually affirmed the defendant’s conviction for violating a no contact order. If you are faced with domestic violence charges, it is smart to confer with a Tacoma domestic violence defense lawyer about your options.

It is reported that the defendant’s father lived with a woman who provided him with care and companionship. The woman obtained a domestic violence no-contact order against the defendant in 2020 due to his alcohol-induced aggressive and threatening behavior. This order prohibited the defendant from coming within 200 feet of her residence, school, or workplace.

Allegedly, the defendant began living in a trailer on his father’s property. In January 2021, law enforcement was called to the residence after the defendant entered the home while intoxicated, demanded the woman’s departure, and made threats. Police arrested the defendant for violating the no-contact order. He was charged with felony violation of a court order and other crimes. A jury found him guilty of violating the no contact order and residential burglary. He appealed on numerous grounds.

The Defense of Voluntary Intoxication

On appeal, the defendant claimed that his defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a voluntary intoxication defense. While there was evidence of the defendant’s alcohol consumption and outward signs of intoxication, the State argued that he did not meet the necessary criteria for such a defense and that even if he did, its absence did not prejudice him.

The court explained that Washington law states that voluntary intoxication does not make an act less criminal, but it can be considered when determining a defendant’s mental state if that mental state is a crucial element of the crime. For a voluntary intoxication defense to be warranted, the crime must require a specific mental state, there must be substantial evidence of drinking, and the defendant must provide evidence that alcohol affected their ability to reach the required mental state.

Both charges against the defendant, residential burglary and felony violation of a court order, necessitated a particular mental state. While there was substantial evidence of his alcohol consumption, he failed to demonstrate that alcohol influenced his ability to form the required mental state for either crime. Consequently, the court found no deficiency in counsel’s decision not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense and no reasonable probability that the case’s outcome would have differed if such a defense had been presented to the jury.

Meet with a Trusted Tacoma Attorney

If you are charged with a crime of domestic violence, it is smart to meet with a lawyer to determine your potential defenses. The trusted Tacoma domestic violence defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White understand what it takes to prevail in criminal matters, and if you engage our services, we will diligently pursue the best legal outcome possible in your case. You can reach us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to set up a conference.