State v. Cody M.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for two violations of a standing criminal protective order. It held that the legislature intended each discrete act violating such an order to be separately punishable and that the defendant’s initial contact followed by an escalation to threats constituted two distinct acts. The court also held that any error in defining “harassing” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury’s separate threatening verdict established the factual basis for the protective-order conviction. Justice Ecker, joined by Justice McDonald, concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the statements formed one continuous violation requiring reversal of one conviction and resentencing.