State v. Cody M.

Summary

The court held that two convictions for violating the same standing criminal protective order did not violate double jeopardy because the legislature authorized separate punishment for distinct acts, and the defendant's initial prohibited contact and subsequent threat were separate acts. The court also held that any error in defining "harassing" was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury's separate threatening conviction necessarily established the threatening conduct underlying the protective-order count. A concurrence in part and dissent in part agreed that separate acts may be punished separately but concluded that the defendant's uninterrupted statements constituted only one act and that one conviction should be vacated.