State v. Guzman-Vera, 469 P.3d 842

Defendant Juan Antonio Guzman-Vera was served with an eight-page FAPA restraining order after jail release; the addresses he was barred from were listed on page three.
At service, a police officer and interpreter reviewed only the first page with defendant (a native Spanish speaker); defendant kept the order but did not read the later pages.
Later that night defendant walked to C’s sister‑in‑law’s trailer (one of the addresses listed) and was found within 100 yards; C’s sister‑in‑law had called police.
The state charged defendant with punitive contempt for violating the FAPA order; the trial court found he willfully violated the order (reasoning he chose not to learn the order’s contents) and imposed probation plus $442 in court‑appointed attorney fees.
On appeal defendant argued the court applied the wrong legal standard for willfulness (claiming actual awareness of the specific prohibition was required) and that the court plainly erred by imposing attorney fees without an ability‑to‑pay finding.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt finding (endorsing a head‑in‑the‑sand theory of willfulness) but reversed the attorney‑fee award for lack of evidence of ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Guzman‑Vera)	Held
Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for "willful" contempt in violating a FAPA restraining order	Willfulness was shown because defendant had the order and either knew the prohibition or voluntarily chose not to read it; elective ignorance does not excuse contempt.	"Willful" requires actual knowledge of the specific prohibition; Nicholson requires proof defendant knew he was barred from that address.	Affirmed. The court may find willfulness where a person knows of an order but elects not to learn its terms (head‑in‑the‑sand/elective ignorance). Nicholson does not preclude that theory.
Whether the court erred by imposing court‑appointed attorney fees without determining defendant's ability to pay	Conceded error; state agreed fees were imposed without evidence of ability to pay and appellee asked appellate correction.	Trial court plainly erred; appellate court should correct the fee award for lack of an ability‑to‑pay finding.	Reversed as to attorney‑fee award; remanded/corrected (fee portion vacated).

Pereida‑Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654 (discusses appellate presumptions about implicit factual findings)
Dept. of Rev. v. Carpet Warehouse, 296 Or 400 (recognizes elective ignorance can establish willful disobedience)
State v. Nicholson, 282 Or App 51 (good‑faith belief that an order was dismissed negates willfulness)
State v. Graham, 251 Or App 217 (formulation of contempt elements: valid order, knowledge of order, voluntary noncompliance)
State v. Welch, 295 Or App 410 (contempt for violating court orders includes willfulness inquiry)
State v. Eubanks, 296 Or App 150 (procedural guidance and appellate correction for improperly imposed attorney fees)
Pamplin v. Victoria, 138 Or App 563 (attorney's elective ignorance of court orders can support willfulness)
State ex rel. Mikkelsen v. Hill, 315 Or 452 (historical discussion of wilfulness element in contempt law)