What Intent Is Required to Violate a Protective Order in Kansas?
In Kansas, the intent required to violate a protective order is a key element in determining whether someone has committed this offense. The mental state—or "culpable mental state"—dictates how aware and deliberate a person must be to be convicted of violating a protective order.
Legal Standard: Knowing Violation
Under Kansas law, to be convicted of violating a protective order, the violation must be committed knowingly. This means the defendant must be aware of the protective order and intentionally or deliberately choose to violate its terms. The Kansas statute specifies that knowingly violating “a protection from stalking order issued pursuant to K.S.A. 60–31a05 or 60–31a06” is the required mental state for this crime.
Case Analysis: State v. Sinzogan (2017)
In State v. Sinzogan, the court provided clarity on the mental state required to violate a protective order. The case involved Sinzogan, who was charged with both stalking and violating a protection from stalking order after an encounter with his ex-wife in a parking lot. The case hinged, in part, on the question of whether Sinzogan had the necessary intent to violate the protective order.
The Kansas Court of Appeals examined the difference between the intent required for stalking and the intent required for violating a protective order. Specifically, the court found that:
Violation of a protective order requires a knowing violation. This means the defendant must have been aware of the protective order and acted intentionally to violate it.
In contrast, stalking, when it involves a violation of a protective order, only requires the defendant to act recklessly. In this context, recklessly means that the defendant disregarded the risk that their actions could violate the protective order, even if they did not intentionally mean to do so.
Key Differences Between Knowing and Reckless Conduct
Knowing Violation:
The defendant is aware of the protective order and deliberately chooses to violate it.
Example: The defendant knowingly approaches the protected person despite being explicitly told not to, as outlined in the protective order.
Reckless Violation:
The defendant disregards a known risk that their actions could violate the protective order.
Example: The defendant comes into contact with the protected person in a way that shows indifference to the risk of violating the order, such as repeatedly showing up at the same location even after warnings.
Court’s Conclusion in State v. Sinzogan
The court in State v. Sinzogan ultimately held that the culpable mental state for violation of a protective order—knowingly—is higher than the culpable mental state for stalking by violating a protective order—recklessly. This means that while stalking requires recklessness, a violation of a protective order demands a higher level of intent—knowing awareness and deliberate violation.
Understanding Multiplicity and Double Jeopardy
Sinzogan argued that being convicted of both stalking and violating a protective order for the same incident violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because it would amount to multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that because stalking and violating a protective order require different mental states, they are not considered the same crime. As such, both convictions were upheld.
Summary of Required Intent
To be convicted of violating a protective order, the defendant must have acted knowingly—meaning they were aware of the order and intentionally violated it.
In contrast, a stalking charge involving a violation of a protective order requires only recklessness, meaning the defendant acted with disregard for the risk of violating the order.
This distinction is important because it affects both how prosecutors pursue these charges and how defense attorneys approach the case. Understanding the different levels of intent can impact the legal strategy and the outcome in court.