State v. BartelAnnotate this Case
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of violating a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial.
In his motion for new trial, Defendant requested that the county court vacate his conviction because of a stipulated order in his separate domestic case that purported to render the original protection order void ab initio. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that the order in the domestic relations case reflected the parties’ negotiations after trial based on then-existing circumstances and was not newly discovered evidence relevant to Defendant's criminal trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's contention that the order in his domestic relations case was newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial in the criminal case.