Case ID: or-app_202/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted October 20,
    reversed November 16, 2005
    Paul BRASSFIELD, Respondent, v. Jeff CROWNER, Appellant.
    
    18-04-18721; A126794
    123 P3d 379
    George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    No appearance for respondent.
    Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Schuman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
    
      
      
         Linder, J., vice Ceniceros, S. J.
    
   PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from a stalking protective order that was entered against both appellant and respondent. ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B) allows entry of an order if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that

“(i) The person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person;
“(ii) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact; and
“(iii) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.”

ORS 163.730(7) defines “repeated” as “two or more times.” Appellant argues that the evidence demonstrates only one act on his part involving threatening contact, and therefore the statutory requirement of two or more unwanted contacts has not been satisfied. On our review of the record, we agree with appellant.

Reversed.