State v. Kenney Wayne Madlock, 2012AP1439-CR, District 1, 1/15/13
Court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity
Violating domestic abuse injunction — Sufficiency of the evidence
The evidence was sufficient to support conviction at a bench trial for violating an injunction that required Madlock to avoid the residence of T.M., who had asked for the injunction. T.M. testified that Madlock drove down the street while she was outside her house, stopped, backed up and parked, stared at her, and then drove away. (¶¶3-4). Madlock admitted driving down the street where T.M. lived and seeing her outside, but denied stopping because that “would have violated” the injunction. (¶6). The trial court believed T.M., not Madlock. (¶7). Thus:
¶10 Given T.M.’s testimony, which the trial court found credible, and Madlock’s awareness that had he stopped in front of T.M.’s house, as T.M. testified he did, he would have violated the injunction, any contention that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that he knowingly violated the injunction’s direction to “avoid” T.M.’s “residence” borders on the frivolous. Further, given the trial court’s findings, this case is not, as Madlock seems to contend, his merely driving on a public street past T.M.’s house—either inadvertently or unknowingly. The harassment order required that Madlock “avoid” T.M.’s house. He knowingly did not. Accordingly, we affirm.
