State v. Welch, 434 P.3d 488

Defendant was charged with contempt for violating a FAPA restraining order that prohibited him from "knowingly be[ing] or stay[ing] within 500 feet" of the victim, S.
After being served with the order, defendant remained at a restaurant where S arrived; witnesses placed his remaining time there between 15–45 minutes before he left only when police arrived.
Trial court found a valid FAPA order existed, defendant knew of it, denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), and found him in contempt but imposed no punitive sanctions—only reiterated obligation to comply.
On initial appeal the court dismissed the appeal as moot because no sanctions were imposed; the Oregon Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. K. J. B., which clarified the burden on a movant to prove mootness.
On remand the state conceded it could not carry the burden to show mootness; the court therefore considered the merits and affirmed denial of the MJOA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal from contempt judgment	State: appeal moot because no punitive sanctions and no proven collateral consequences	Welch: contempt judgment carries inherent social stigma; collateral consequences exist so appeal is not moot	Court: State failed to meet its burden under K. J. B.; appeal not moot (state later conceded)
Sufficiency — willfulness to support contempt	State: evidence that defendant saw S, delayed leaving, left only when police arrived supports inference of willful noncompliance	Welch: he made reasonable/good-faith efforts to comply (finished meal, paid, brief delay) so not willful	Court: Evidence permitted a rational trier of fact to infer willful violation; affirm denial of MJOA
Preservation — legal standard applied by trial court	State: N/A	Welch: trial court applied wrong legal standard	Court: Issue not preserved; declined plain-error review

State v. K. J. B., 362 Or. 777, 416 P.3d 291 (clarifies burden on movant to establish mootness and treatment of asserted collateral consequences)
Couey & Couey v. Couey, 312 Or. 302, 821 P.2d 1086 (defining elements for contempt and willfulness not requiring bad intent separate from willful disobedience)
State v. Nicholson, 282 Or. App. 51, 383 P.3d 977 (prima facie contempt: valid order, knowledge, and willful noncompliance)
State v. Beleke, 287 Or. App. 417, 403 P.3d 481 (standard of review for sufficiency in contempt convictions)
Southworth & Southworth v. Southworth, 113 Or. App. 607, 835 P.2d 122 (reasonableness/good-faith compliance can defeat contempt when compliance was impossible)