State v. Meadows
Opinion
The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court,
"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that (1) the defendant's constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated when he was convicted of two counts of violation of a standing criminal protective order on the basis of different words spoken to the protected person during a single, brief, and uninterrupted statement, and (2) the jury was properly instructed that to `harass' means to `trouble, worry or torment' for purposes of an enhanced penalty for violating a standing criminal protective order?"
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
196 A.3d 327 (State v. Meadows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.