This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with criminal trespass, telephone harassment, and harassment following an incident with the victim on June 20, 2003. The charges stemmed from allegations of unwanted contact and behavior. The relationship between the Defendant and the victim was contested, with implications for whether the offenses constituted domestic violence under the Family Violence Protection Act (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass and harassment. The court dismissed the telephone harassment charge. The judgment did not specify whether the crimes involved a household member or constituted domestic violence (paras 1, 3).
- District Court: The Defendant appealed and requested a trial de novo, arguing the offenses did not involve domestic violence. The district court denied the motion, upheld the convictions on an on-record review, and determined the victim was a household member (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the metropolitan court did not find the victim to be a household member, and therefore, the convictions did not constitute domestic violence. Contended that he was entitled to a trial de novo under Section 34-8A-6(D) (paras 6-7).
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the district court correctly determined the victim was a household member based on evidence of a "continuing personal relationship." Argued that the Defendant's actions constituted domestic violence and that the district court's interpretation of the statute should be upheld (paras 7-8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo in district court for his convictions of criminal trespass and harassment (para 6).
- Whether the district court erred in determining that the offenses constituted domestic violence under the Family Violence Protection Act (para 6).
- Whether the appeal was moot because the Defendant had already served his sentence (para 14).
Disposition
- The denial of the Defendant's motion for a trial de novo was reversed (para 16).
- The case was remanded to the district court for a trial de novo (para 16).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The court found that the metropolitan court's judgment did not include a finding that the victim was a household member or that the offenses constituted domestic violence. The absence of such a finding meant the Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo under Section 34-8A-6(D) (paras 9-10). The court emphasized that the burden was on the State to prove the victim's status as a household member, which it failed to do (paras 10-13).
The court also addressed the mootness argument, acknowledging that the Defendant had completed his sentence. However, it concluded that the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review, as similar cases could arise where defendants might lose their right to a trial de novo without appellate relief due to the short duration of sentences (paras 14-15).