Opinion ID: 1344706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: evidence proving violation of a protective order

Text: The seventh issue is whether the State adduced sufficient evidence to support Rudolph's conviction for violating a protective order. He correctly points out that an actor must have been properly served with the protective order before he or she can be convicted of violating Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-108. He argues that the State presented no evidence that he was served with the permanent protective order. However, the undisputed evidence did show that he was served with the ex parte protective order. In addition, section 76-5-108 provides: Any person who has been restrained from abusing or contacting another or ordered to vacate a dwelling or remain away from the premises of the other's residence... under a protective order or ex parte protective order issued under Title 30, Chapter 6, or Title 78, Chapter 3a, who violates that order after having been properly served with it, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.) Thus, because this section expressly includes ex parte protective orders, we must determine whether Rudolph was properly charged with violating an ex parte order and whether it remained in effect at the time of his alleged crimes. First, the State points out that the information charged Rudolph with violating a protective order that was issued pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 30-6-6 (1994). [4] It argues further that orders issued pursuant to this section include both ex parte and permanent protective orders. We find this argument persuasive and hold that Rudolph was properly charged with violating either a permanent or an ex parte protective order issued pursuant to section 30-6-6. Second, the State argues that even though Rudolph was not served with the permanent protective order, he remained bound by the terms of the ex parte protective order. Under Utah Code Ann. § 30-6-5(6) (1994), if the defendant had notice of the hearing and the court issues a permanent protective order, the terms of the ex parte order shall remain in effect until a certified copy of the [permanent] protective order is properly served on the defendant. [5] Because Rudolph had notice of the hearing regarding the permanent protective order, he remained bound by the ex parte order until that permanent order was served. Therefore, at the time Rudolph broke into the victim's home, the ex parte protective order restraining him from visiting or abusing the victim remained in effect. For these reasons, we conclude that the evidence supported Rudolph's conviction for violating a protective order.