State v. Arnold

"[T]he rules for personal service under ORCP 7 'do not require actual in-hand delivery, or a face-to-face encounter with an acknowledgement of identity from the person to be served,' because '[t]o so require would allow a defendant to defeat service simply by refusing to identify himself or accept the papers.'" Business & Prof. Adj. Co. v. Baker, 62 Or App 237, 240-41, 659 P2d 1025 (1983).

Defendant appealed a contempt judgment for violating a restraining order.  Defendant assigned error to trial court's denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal and to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of a willful violation.  On appeal, Defendant argued that she the restraining order did not apply to her and she did not violate the restraining order because the restraining order did not correctly name her. In response, the State argued that the record supported a finding that the restraining order applied to Defendant and Defendant knew that the court could infer willful violations of that restraining order.  "[T]he rules for personal service under ORCP 7 'do not require actual in-hand delivery, or a face-to-face encounter with an acknowledgement of identity from the person to be served,' because '[t]o so require would allow a defendant to defeat service simply by refusing to identify himself or accept the papers.'" Business & Prof. Adj. Co. v. Baker, 62 Or App 237, 240-41, 659 P2d 1025 (1983).  The Court held that Defendant was properly served with the order and knew that the order applied to her, therefore the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion.  Affirmed.