Opinion
No. 5-417 / 04-1450
Filed June 15, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David A. Lester, Judge.
Dennis Godfredsen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's decision finding him in contempt. WRIT ANNULLED.
Michael Johnson of Stoller Johnson, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert Ewald, Assistant Attorney General, and Rosalise Olson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
This is an original certiorari action challenging the district court's August 10, 2004, order finding Dennis Godfredsen in contempt of court for violating the terms of a protective order entered following an adjudication of domestic abuse pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 236 (2003).
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On September 2, 2003, the district court entered a protective order pursuant to Iowa Code section 236.12 prohibiting Dennis from having any contact with Debra Godfredsen. The protective order included the following restrictions:
1. [Dennis] shall not threaten, assault, stalk, molest, attack, harass or otherwise abuse [Debra].
2. [Dennis] shall stay away from [Debra] and shall not be in [Debra's] presence, except in a courtroom during court hearings.
3. [Dennis] shall not communicate with [Debra] in person, by telephone, in writing, through third persons, or otherwise. This restriction shall not prohibit communication through legal counsel.
4. [Debra] shall have exclusive possession of the [marital home] located at 1812 285th Avenue, Spirit Lake, Iowa. [Dennis] shall not go to, enter, occupy or remain in that residence or any other residence in which [Debra] is staying, under any circumstances.
According to Debra, Dennis was standing in her driveway on June 5, 2004, when she returned home from work. In the ensuing confrontation, Dennis cursed at her and broke the windshield of her car with his fist. Dennis was thereafter arrested by Dickinson County Deputy Robert Bringle for violating the terms of the September 2, 2003, protective order. As a result, the State filed an application requesting that Dennis be cited for contempt of court and punished accordingly.
Following an August 9, 2004, hearing on the State's contempt application, the court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
As previously noted, the protective order issued in this matter on September 2, 2003 contains provisions, which order that Dennis stay away from Debra, except in a courtroom during a hearing, and that he also not communicate with her. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the court concludes that Debra has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis violated both of these provisions of the protective order. Moreover, Dennis's actions in striking the windshield of the vehicle in which Debra was riding constitute a violation of paragraph 1 of the order, which provides that Dennis is not to threaten or attack Debra. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the court finds that a violation of the protective order did in fact occur as alleged by Debra on June 5, 2004.
The next issue that needs to be addressed by the court is whether in fact that violation was willful or intentional. It is clear from the record that Debra initiated the improper contact between she and Dennis and, at least to some extent, provoked the violation that occurred. While the court certainly does not condone Debra's behavior, nonetheless, the court also does not condone Dennis's behavior in responding to Debra's provocation. Under the terms of the protective order in effect between the parties, Dennis has an absolute obligation to not have any contact with Debra, except in a courtroom, and to not communicate with her in any fashion. Moreover, he is not to engage in any kind of behavior that could be considered threatening or assaultive.
Rather than comply with these known duties and leave the area, as he could have, Dennis chose instead to not only respond to Debra's provocation by approaching her vehicle and yelling at her, but also chose to intentionally strike the windshield of the vehicle in which she was seated. All of the foregoing, the court concludes, constitute actions by Dennis that were "contrary to a known duty," and therefore, establishes willful disobedience of the September 2, 2003 protective order. à Accordingly, the court concludes that Dennis is in contempt of this court for willfully and intentionally violating the September 2, 2003 protective order.
Dennis was sentenced to serve a seven-day term in the Dickinson County jail. On October 28, 2004, the supreme court granted Dennis's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's judgment finding him in contempt of court.
II. Standard of Review
A certiorari action is a procedure utilized to test whether a lower board, tribunal, or court exceeded its proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. We review the district court's action for correction of errors at law. Wyciskalla v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 588 N.W.2d 403, 405 (Iowa 1998). The writ will be sustained if we find the district court acted illegally, or without authority or jurisdiction. Id. Illegality exists when the court's factual findings lack substantial evidentiary support, or when the court has not properly applied the law. Christensen v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 578 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa 1998).
III. The Merits
On review of a contempt ruling, this court must determine whether substantial evidence exists that would "convince a rational trier of fact that the alleged contemner is guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. The party requesting the contempt finding has the burden of proving that the contemner (1) had a duty to obey a court order and (2) willfully failed to perform that duty. In re Marriage of Jacobo, 526 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 1995). Once the burden of production has shifted, it remains with the contemner. Medina v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 552 N.W.2d 140, 142-43 (Iowa 1996).
Dennis argues there is insufficient evidence to prove "that he confronted Debra or that he broke the windshield of her vehicle." During the contempt hearing, Dennis testified that he was picking asparagus about one half mile from the marital home when Debra stopped to verbally confront him. He believes Deputy Bringle's testimony placing his tire tracks and footprints near the driveway is contradicted by other evidence in the record, and further argues he could not have broken Debra's windshield because the injuries to his back and left shoulder would prevent him from generating enough force and there were no cuts or abrasions on either of his hands.
Dennis's testimonial version of events was, however, contradicted by the State's witnesses. Sue MacMillan, Debra's friend and co-worker, told the court that Debra's windshield was not broken when she left work on June 5, 2004, and Deputy Bringle believed the windshield had been "broken really recently" based on the shards of glass scattered on top of the papers and things in the car. When Deputy Bringle and Sue arrived at the marital home, Debra was visibly upset and shaken. Even though Dennis and his truck were down the road from the driveway when Deputy Bringle arrived, Deputy Bringle's investigation uncovered fresh footprints that matched Dennis's "in the driveway area," and tire tracks consistent with Dennis's truck that followed from the road across from the entrance to the driveway to where Dennis was found picking asparagus. All of these findings were consistent with Debra's recollection of events.
Moreover, the district court, as the finder of fact, was free to accept or reject Dennis's testimony concerning his version of events, including his alleged physical inability to break the windshield. "When the evidence is in conflict, the fact finder may resolve those conflicts in accordance with its own views as to the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 377 (Iowa 1998). Because we find substantial evidence supports the district court's decision, we annul the writ of certiorari.