Personal protection order (PPO); Due process; Standard of proof for criminal contempt; Beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; “Willful”

The court held that “respondent’s argument that the trial court violated his right to due process by failing to find the ‘willful’ element of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt” was without merit. “Viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that respondent violated the PPO and was guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” On appeal, he asked the court “to vacate his criminal-contempt conviction, arguing that the trial court violated his due-process rights by applying an incorrect standard of proof to criminal contempt before finding him guilty.” Specifically, he contended “that the trial court failed to find the ‘willful’ element of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The evidence supported “the trial court’s finding that respondent willfully disregarded or willfully disobeyed a court order, i.e., the PPO, beyond a reasonable doubt. Respondent admitted that after the original PPO was issued, he contacted petitioner by telephone, entered petitioner’s property, and appeared on her property in the doorbell camera recording. The PPO expressly prohibited respondent from contacting petitioner by telephone, entering petitioner’s property, or sending any communications to petitioner.” The court held that “respondent’s admissions, combined with the doorbell recording and texts admitted at trial, establish multiple PPO violations.” The court noted that he “testified that he did not know about the PPO at the time he committed this conduct.” Although he “denied any knowledge of the PPO, the trial court did not find this testimony credible.” The court does “not weigh the credibility of the witnesses that appear before the trial court in determining whether there is evidence to support the trial court’s findings.” Other evidence refuted his “argument that he lacked notice of the PPO. Petitioner testified that a process server served the PPO on respondent on [4/24/21]. That process server filed a proof of service of affidavit, and respondent did not object when the trial court took judicial notice of that filing. The same day the PPO was served on respondent, petitioner received text messages from respondent, in which respondent referred to the PPO. Petitioner also testified that respondent referred to 'that fake PPO' during a phone call, in which petitioner reminded respondent of the PPO and told him not to call her. In its findings of fact, the trial court emphasized the doorbell recording, noting that respondent’s act of putting his fingers over the doorbell camera was ‘very suspect’ and demonstrated that respondent entered petitioner’s property with knowledge that the PPO had been issued and that he was not supposed to be on petitioner’s property. From this evidence, the trial court could conclude that respondent had notice of the PPO and willfully disregarded or disobeyed the PPO when he contacted petitioner and entered her property.” As such, “sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court’s finding that respondent was guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.”