State v. Guyton
Annotate this CaseJohn Varel, the owner of a 1,000-acre parcel of property, filed a petition for injunction against harassment directed against Defendant. The circuit court granted the petition and entered an injunction order prohibiting Defendant from entering Varel’s “residence, including yard and garage.” When Defendant was discovered dirt biking on the outer limits of Varel’s property, he was charged with violating the injunction order. The district court concluded that Defendant violated the injunction order. Defendant appealed, arguing that the most reasonable construction of the term “yard,” as used in the injunction order, should not encompass the entire 1,000 acres of Varel’s property. The Intermediate Court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the meaning of “residence, including yard” encompasses only the house where Varel lives and the area directly adjacent to it, and therefore, the area of Varel’s property where Defendant was observed was outside the meaning of “residence, including yard”; and (2) accordingly, the conviction in this case was not supported by sufficient evidence and must be reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.