State v. Trivitt

Posting a sign at the residence of a third party does not constitute "interfering" with a person protected by a FAPA restraining order, and therefore is not covered by a FAPA order that prohibits an individual from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing the protected person, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere with or menace that person directly or through third parties.

Defendant's ex-husband had a FAPA restraining order prohibiting defendant from entering or attempting to enter the ex-husband's residence or "intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing [ex-husband], or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere with or menace [him] directly or through third parties." Defendant was convicted of contempt of court for posting a sign at the residence of her ex-husband's girlfriend. Defendant appealed, arguing that that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that she engaged in conduct prohibited by the FAPA order. The Court of Appeals reasoned that legislative intent was not to proscribe the type of conduct at issue in this case, and that "interfering" within the context of FAPA could not encompass defendant's conduct. As such, the Court ruled that defendant's conduct did not constitute "interfering" with the protected person and was not otherwise prohibited by the FAPA order. Reversed.