Felony DANCO Prosecution Requires Proof of Knowing Violation of Order

State v. Watkins, Minn.Ct.App., 9/10/2012.  The district court issued a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO) but misspelled the name of the protected person and listed an incorrect date of birth.  Thereafter, Mr. Watkins telephoned the protected person and sent her a Valentine’s greeting.  The state charged him with felony violations of the DANCO.

The DANCO statute differentiates between misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and felony offenses.  The misdemeanor violation  just said that the defendant “violates the order,” but both the gross misdemeanor and the felony offenses say that the defendant “knowingly violates” the misdemeanor provision with the requisite prior convictions.  When the trial court instructed the jury on Mr. Watkins’ felony charges it did not charge the jury that Mr. Watkins had to knowingly violate the order.  The court of appeals concludes that this was plain error, relying on its decision from just a short while ago that came to the same conclusion about the  different violations possible of the harassment restraining order.  State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 (Minn.Ct.App. 2012).  See here.

The court also concludes that the error affected Mr. Watkins’ substantial rights and that a new trial was required “to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.

The name misspelling and incorrect date of birth, however, are deemed to be clerical errors and do not support Mr. Watkins’ claim that the evidence against him was insufficient.

He gets a new trial.