Source: https://www.michaelrehm.com/violation-restrainingorder
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:50:56+00:00

Document:
273.6. (a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This section covers violations of protective orders or stay away orders issued by the court. This crime is a misdemeanor.
Punishment: A defendant can receive a sentence of up to one year in the county jail or a one thousand dollar fine, or both imprisonment and a fine. If the case involves injury to another person, a defendant will have to serve at least 30 days in county jail but may have to serve up to a year. The defendant can also receive a fine of two thousand dollars, or a combination of a fine and jail time.
(2) The order was a stay-away order or protective order pursuant to a specific penal code issued in a criminal proceeding concerning domestic violence (or elder/dependent adult abuse) and the order was a condition of defendant's probation.
(5) Willful conduct on part of the defendant in violating the order.
• The court order must be lawfully issued in order to hold the defendant accountable. Pen. Code, § 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804.
• Willfully means that the defendant committed the act on purpose or a willingness to do the act which is proscribed.
• Penal Code 273.6 is a general intent crime. People v. Greenfield, 134 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1 (1982). This means that the defendant only needs the intent to do the proscribed act, i.e. to go within 20 feet of the victim. It is not required that the defendant have the intent to achieve a further goal.
• The prosecution only has to show that the defendant knew of the order's existence. They do not have to prove the defendant actually read the order himself/herself. All that is required to be shown is that there was an opportunity for the defendant to read the order. People v. Poe (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 928.
• The prosecution does not need to show a proof of service for the order. People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967.
• Since this section is a general intent crime, the defendant cannot claim that a mental disability prevented him/her from complying with the order. People v. Greenfield (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.
(1) An unlawfully issued order: i.e. the court issuing the order lacked the authority to do so.
(2) Lack of knowledge: if the defendant truly did not know about the order, he or she cannot be held accountable for violating it.
(3) Lack of intent: A defendant needs to perform a willful act which constitutes the violation. An accidental violation will not suffice. For example, if the defendant (under a no-contact order) sends out an e-mail to a list of recipients without knowing the victim's address is still included, he will not willfully violated the order prohibiting him from contacting the victim.
People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967.

References: § 166
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.