State v. Branson

Pamela Hird obtained a protection-from-abuse (PFA) order under Kansas’s Protection from Abuse Act (PFA Act) against her former romantic partner, Darrel J. Branson (defendant). The PFA order prohibited Branson from contacting Hird or from entering her residence or place of work, unless authorized by the court. The PFA order also provided that Branson may be criminally liable or held in contempt for violating the order. About four months after the PFA order was issued, one of Hird’s coworkers, who was aware of the order, contacted the police after Branson had attempted to get into their work building. Branson was arrested and the State of Kansas (plaintiff) charged Branson with violating the PFA order. At Branson’s trial, Hird testified that she had allowed Branson to stay in her basement for a week before his arrest because he had shown up at her house intoxicated and had nowhere to go. Hird also testified that she did not notify the police that Branson had violated the PFA order because she felt that she had involved the police too frequently and was afraid that she may be in trouble for allowing the contact. Branson moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Hird had consented to the contact. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Branson was guilty of violating the PFA order, regardless of whether Hird had consented to the contact. Branson appealed.