843 S.E.2d 389
Va. Ct. App.2020Background:
- On May 8, 2018, Isaiah Green went to the apartment of Starr Catrone to get their child, became agitated, hit Catrone’s hand, and was locked out after Andrades closed the door.
- Minutes later Green forcibly entered the apartment the next evening; occupants called police, Green fled through the back door; the apartment showed significant damage (torn photos, clothing scattered, urine/feces, damaged back door and unlocked window).
- Catrone obtained a preliminary protective order on May 29, 2018 prohibiting Green from having “no contact of any kind.”
- On June 1 Green posted a public Twitter message: “Someone tell my BM she was a bird for me,” which Catrone construed as directed at her and found intimidating.
- At trial Green pleaded guilty to common-law trespass; the trial court also convicted him of statutory burglary (Code § 18.2-92) and violating the protective order (Code § 16.1-253.2); sentences were imposed and this appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trespass conviction precludes a burglary conviction when the burglary statute excludes trespass as the underlying misdemeanor | Commonwealth: burglary valid if evidence shows intent to commit a misdemeanor other than trespass | Green: guilty plea to trespass means his entry could only have been with intent to trespass, so burglary is legally impossible | Affirmed: burglary upheld—sufficient evidence Green intended to commit additional misdemeanor (destruction of property) when entering |
| Whether a public Twitter post constituted "contact" in violation of a protective order prohibiting "contact of any kind" | Commonwealth: indirect/social-media communications can be contact if intentionally directed to the protected person | Green: public post not a direct communication to Catrone, so not a prohibited contact | Affirmed: the post was an intentional, indirect contact that pierced the protective barrier and violated the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Masika v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 330 (2014) (legal-impossibility principle where statute expressly excludes the defendant’s intended act)
- Moody v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 702 (1998) (defendant may act with more than one intent)
- Elliott v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 457 (2009) (defining "contact" as acts that pierce the protective barrier; protective orders safeguard petitioner’s safety)
- Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455 (2017) (appellate sufficiency review views evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
- Heffron v. State, 190 A.3d 232 (Me. 2018) (social-media posts can constitute prohibited contact under protective-order statutes)