Background
Peterson was married to R, who left the relationship and became involved with Y. Y later obtained a stalking protective order against Peterson, which was served on Peterson in June 2024.
In September 2024, Y received text messages on his personal cellphone that he believed came from Peterson. Y testified that he recognized numbers associated with Peterson because of Peterson’s prior calls. Some messages appeared to be directed to R, although their intended recipient was difficult to determine because they were incoherent. Following a bench trial, the court found Peterson in contempt for violating the protective order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals rejected Peterson’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence because he had not preserved it. His closing argument asked the trial court, as factfinder, not to be persuaded that the communications came from him or were directed to Y, but it did not clearly argue that the evidence was legally insufficient to support contempt. Peterson also did not request discretionary plain-error review of that claim.
The court agreed, however, that the contempt judgment could not stand without an express finding of willfulness. Oregon contempt law requires a willful violation of a court order, and contempt-specific precedent requires the trial court to state that finding explicitly rather than leave it to inference. Because the judgment contained no express willfulness finding, the court vacated it and remanded for the trial court to make that finding and proceed accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- In an Oregon bench trial, a defendant preserves an evidentiary-sufficiency challenge only by clearly arguing legal insufficiency, not merely by urging the judge to disbelieve or give less weight to the state’s evidence.
- A contempt judgment must include an express finding that the violation was willful; an appellate court may not infer that finding from the record or ruling.
- The court excused preservation of the missing-finding issue because Peterson had no practical ability to object until the judgment was entered.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights two distinct procedural requirements in Oregon contempt cases: defendants must clearly frame sufficiency challenges as legal arguments at trial, while trial courts must expressly address willfulness in the judgment. Even when the record could support an inference of intentional conduct, that inference cannot replace the required finding.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.