Opinion ID: 6357542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Extension

Text: [¶ 19] The appeal appears to challenge whether there was sufficient evidence to support the court's extension of the protection order for two years and the order prohibiting the defendant from possessing firearms. We do not find these arguments persuasive. The evidence discussed above is more than sufficient to support the extension of the order for an additional two years, including the prohibition on the possession of firearms. See Walton v. Ireland , 2014 ME 130 , ¶ 22, 104 A.3d 883 (We review a trial court's finding of abuse for clear error and will affirm a trial court's findings if they are supported by competent evidence in the record, even if the evidence might support alternative findings of fact.). [¶ 20] Even if the extended protection order had not included an explicit prohibition against the possession of firearms, that prohibition would have arisen by operation of federal law as a result of the provisions of the order that prohibited the defendant from threatening, harassing, or stalking the plaintiff, 4 and that prohibited him from using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against the plaintiff that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. See 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(8) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 115-196). The evidence presented to the court warranted issuance of an order containing these prohibitions. Consequently, the inclusion of an explicit firearms prohibition did not prejudice the defendant, because application of federal law would have had the same effect as a direct result of the other provisions of the order. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.