State v. Cody M.

Summary

The court held that two convictions for violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant committed two distinct violations: an initial prohibited contact followed by a separate threatening act after the victim did not respond. The court also held that any error in defining "harassing" was harmless because the jury's separate threatening verdict necessarily established the threatening theory charged for the protective-order count. Justice Ecker, joined by Justice McDonald, concurred in the instructional-error ruling but would have treated the statements as one continuous violation and vacated one conviction.