State v. Carter, 151 Conn.App. 527

Defendant James P. Carter, Jr. was convicted of murder and criminal violation of a restraining order after a 2009 stabbing.
An ex parte restraining order was issued on January 8, 2009, with a hearing scheduled for January 16, 2009.
The ex parte order prohibited contacting or assaulting the victim, and stated it remained in effect until the hearing unless extended.
On February 14, 2009, the victim was stabbed; the state introduced the ex parte order as proof of the restraining order’s effect.
The defense challenged whether a restraining order was in effect on February 14, 2009 and whether the terms could be proven; evidence included testimony and police database checks.
The trial court denied motions for acquittal; the jury found guilt on both murder and restraining-order violation; the defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a restraining order in effect on February 14, 2009?	Carter contends no order was in effect on that date.	Carter argues the state failed to prove an active order on the murder date.	Yes; evidence supported that a restraining order was in effect.
Were the terms of the restraining order proven?	State contends terms prohibiting assault were established by the ex parte order and related evidence.	Carter argues the terms were not proven by the evidence admitted.	Yes; terms, including prohibition on assault, were reasonably inferred.
May the ex parte order prove terms of a subsequent order?	State argues the ex parte order supports inference of similar terms in the posthearing order.	Carter contends it cannot rely on the ex parte order to prove posthearing terms.	Yes; the inference was reasonable that subsequent order included the same prohibition on assault.
Did best evidence rule require the operative order to be entered into evidence?	State suggests preferable entry of the operative order, but permissible to rely on other evidence.	Carter asserts failure to enter the operative order violated best evidence rule.	No; failure to enter did not render the evidence insufficient.

State v. Hasfal, 94 Conn. App. 741 (2006) (set forth standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 (2006) (circumstantial evidence admissible and probative)
State v. Larsen, 117 Conn. App. 202 (2009) (elements of assaulting a protected person and general intent)
State v. Winter, 117 Conn. App. 493 (2010) (fact-based review; ability to draw reasonable inferences)
State v. Taylor, 306 Conn. 426 (2012) (comparison of terms between ex parte and posthearing orders)
Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 202 Conn. 1 (1986) (best evidence rule framework and original writing preference)
Barlow v. Lopes, 201 Conn. 103 (1986) (collateral consequences doctrine)