≡ Menu

Violation of TRO, § 813.125

State v. James M. Johnson, 2011AP2374-CR, District 2, 2/8/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Evidence – Johnson left voicemail message on complainant’s work phone – held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating temporary restraining order.

¶8        Regarding the nature of the voice mail message and its violation of the TRO, the TRO itself states that Johnson is to “avoid contact that harasses or intimidates the petitioner,” contact defined as including contact by phone.  Klajborn testified, and the audio recording showed, that Johnson called her to ask for the phone number to the West Allis police department.  Klajborn testified that she felt harassed by the message and that “[i]t just seemed like he wanted some reason to make contact, but there was no valid reason for it.”  Johnson argues that there is “no way” he would have left a voice mail message identifying himself and asking about the disorderly conduct case if he had known that such a message would violate the TRO.  The jury heard Johnson’s testimony, heard Klajborn’s testimony, heard the message itself, and had before it instructions explaining what it means to violate a TRO.  The jury found that Johnson had violated the TRO by leaving the voice mail message.  We will not overturn the jury’s finding when it had ample evidence before it to support its conclusion.

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment