State v. Cody M. — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees that the legislature intended separate punishment for discrete violations of a standing criminal protective order and that any instructional error concerning "harassing" was harmless. It disagrees with the majority's application of that rule, concluding that the defendant's uninterrupted statements constituted one continuous violation because they occurred within seconds, at the same location, without an intervening event, and with a singular purpose. The opinion would reverse the conviction on the lesser protective-order count and remand for resentencing.