State v. Bennett

347 Or. App. 333

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: A185031
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 121 February 19, 2026 333

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN MARK BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 24CN01051; A185031

Monica M. Herranz, Judge. Submitted November 25, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Megan Mizuta, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. 334 State v. Bennett

ORTEGA, P. J. Defendant appeals a judgment finding him in con- tempt on three counts of violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) order. In this appeal, he challenges only a sin- gle conviction based on willful intimidation, molestation, or interference with the protected person. He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he violated the order or that any violation was willful because, although the evi- dence showed that he smashed a television, he asserts that it did not show that he did so in the protected person’s pres- ence or home. Because circumstantial evidence permitted those inferences, we affirm. When a defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to find that he willfully violated a court order, we review “to determine whether the record contains evidence from which a rational trier of fact, drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the state, could find all elements of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Northey, 338 Or App 378, 382-83, 567 P3d 480 (2025). The question “is not whether [this court] believe[s] that the defendant was in contempt, but whether the evidence is suf- ficient for the trier of fact to so find.” State v. Beleke, 287 Or App 417, 420-21, 403 P3d 481, rev den, 362 Or 208 (2017). Here, the evidence was legally sufficient to show that defendant willfully intimidated, molested, or inter- fered with the protected person, C, by smashing a television inside her apartment. Specifically, the evidence showed that a FAPA order prohibited defendant from willfully intimidat- ing, molesting, or interfering with C and from willfully being within 150 feet of C or her residence. Nevertheless, police encountered defendant on a street near C and her apart- ment, and defendant admitted that he had damaged the television, stating that he had done so because it belonged to him. Defendant did not have the television with him when he was apprehended, and police took defendant from the scene to jail. Although the responding officer was not able to visit C’s apartment and photograph the television himself while transporting defendant to jail, he asked C to Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 333 (2026) 335

send him a photo of the damaged television, and she did so later that day. That evidence permitted a reasonable infer- ence that defendant smashed the television inside C’s apart- ment in violation of the FAPA order. Affirmed.