Opinion
No. 1-936 / 00-1881.
Filed February 20, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, JAMES A. WEAVER, District Associate Judge.
In this certiorari action, plaintiff seeks review of a district court order finding him in contempt for violating a no-contact order. WRIT ANNULLED.
Jay Schweitzer, Schweitzer Wink, Columbus Junction, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney General, Richard R. Phillips, County Attorney, and Patricia A. Rolfstad, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Shawn Rockhold was granted certiorari review from a district court finding of contempt based on a violation of a no-contact order. He contends the evidence does not support a finding he willfully disobeyed the no-contact order. We affirm the district court and annul the writ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings .
On September 13, 2000, a no-contact order was issued based on a criminal complaint filed against Rockhold for the crime of simple domestic abuse assault. The complaint accused Rockhold of yanking a purse from his wife's shoulder during an argument, causing her to stumble and scratch her shoulder.
The no-contact order stated that Rockhold was not to have contact in any form with Adeline Rockhold, the protected party. The order directed him not to "threaten, assault, stalk or harass the protected party, persons residing with the protected party or the grandparents, parents, foster parents or siblings of any protected party." The no-contact order also included the following language which appeared in bold-face type: "Violations may occur even if the protected party consents to the contact or violation. A Court Order is required to change this Order. Alleged violators will be arrested and held in custody until a court appearance." Rockhold was provided with a copy of the no-contact order during his initial court appearance.
On September 19, 2000, the protected party had a hang-up phone call at her residence. Immediately following the call she used the "star-six-nine" function on her phone to determine the call was placed from the address where her husband was living. On September 25, the protected party's caller-identification system indicated Shawn had placed another telephone call to his wife's home.
Deputy sheriff Quinn Reiss was dispatched to Adeline Rockhold's home. The deputy was shown a copy of the no-contact order in effect between Rockhold and his wife. He observed the entry on the caller-identification system as well as an entry on an answering machine which was generated by the call placed to the Rockhold residence on September 19.
Deputy Reiss eventually spoke to Shawn Rockhold. Rockhold told the deputy that he called his wife's residence on two occasions. The district court then ordered Rockhold to appear before the court to determine whether or not he should be held in contempt for violating the no-contact order.
Following a contempt hearing, the district court found Shawn Rockhold in contempt for violating the no-contact order and sentenced him to serve seven days in jail with work release. Rockhold filed a notice of appeal which was treated as a petition for writ of certiorari by our supreme court.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence .
Rockhold argues the evidence is insufficient to show he willfully disobeyed the no-contact order. He admits placing at least one call to his wife's residence, and then hanging up before the phone was answered.
In order to be convicted of contempt, Rockhold must be shown to have willfully violated the no-contact order. See State v. Lipcamon, 483 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1992). In order for a violation to be found willful, there must be:
evidence of conduct that is intentional and deliberate with a bad or evil purpose, or wanton and in disregard of the rights of others,
or contrary to a known duty, or unauthorized, coupled with unconcern whether the contemner had the right or not.Id. In reviewing whether the evidence supports a willful violation, "we examine the evidence, not de novo, but to assure ourselves that proper proof supports the judgment." Id. at 607.
The trial court concluded Rockhold violated the no-contact order by twice telephoning the residence of his wife after the no-contact order was issued. Rockhold claims his violation of the order was not willful because a friend told him his wife had promised to have the no-contact order lifted. As the trial court noted, Rockhold was represented by counsel when he placed the calls to his wife's residence. If he had reason to believe the no-contact order had been vacated, he could have easily verified this prior to placing calls to his wife's residence.
The fact that Rockhold did not engage in direct verbal conversation with his spouse does not mean the no-contact order was not violated. The obvious purpose of a no-contact order is to protect the victim of domestic abuse from further harm or harassment. A victim of assault is likely to feel distressed or harassed when the alleged abuser is attempting to make unauthorized contact. Distress of this type is one of the wrongs addressed by a protective order.
Rockhold cites State v. Lipcamon in support of his position that the evidence was insufficient to find he willfully disobeyed the no-contact order. We believe Lipcamon is distinguishable from the present case. In Lipcamon, our supreme court declined to hold a defendant willfully violated a no-contact order where the victim acquiesced to the defendant's minimal contacts. Lipcamon, 483 N.W.2d at 607. In addition, the court took into consideration the parties' unique situation, including their living arrangements, their mental and physical condition, the defendant's need for medications that were delivered to the victim's home and her lack of transportation. Id. In Rockhold's case, his spouse never assented to his contact with her and, in fact, contacted the police to report violations of the no-contact order. In addition, the record reveals no unique circumstances that would warrant contact.
We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully violated the court's no-contact order.
WRIT ANNULLED.