State v. Heuer

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed Matthew Heuer’s conviction for violating a protective order. The court held that sufficient evidence established that Heuer indirectly contacted the protected person and disturbed her peace by remaining at a restaurant where she worked after learning of her presence. The memorandum opinion was designated noncitable and issued pursuant to the court’s internal operating rules.

Holdings

1. Sufficient evidence supported the Justice Court's finding that Leya's peace was disturbed during the June 8, 2013 occurrence. The testimony that she was not harassed, annoyed, or disturbed referred to the earlier May 5 occurrence, not the June 8 occurrence.
2. Sufficient evidence established that Heuer had indirect contact with Leya, in violation of the protective order, even though the State did not prove telephone, email, text-message, social-network, or similar communication.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that Heuer violated the protective order's prohibition against harassing, annoying, or disturbing Leya's peace.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that Heuer violated the protective order's prohibition against direct or indirect contact with Leya.

Disposition

affirmed