## Facts

- A court issued a protection-from-abuse (PFA) order against Darrell J. Branson at the request of his former romantic partner, Pamela Hird.
- The PFA order prohibited Branson from having any contact with Hird and from entering or coming around her residence or workplace, except for a limited court-authorized, police-accompanied property retrieval.
- The order warned that violation could be prosecuted as the crime of violating a protective order and could also be punished as contempt of court.
- On the charged date, an employee at Hird’s business reported Branson’s presence; the employee did not admit him and called police after seeing Branson leave in Hird’s vehicle.
- Police stopped Branson driving Hird’s vehicle; he denied being at the business but admitted taking the vehicle from Hird’s residence after obtaining the keys from inside her house.
- At trial, Hird testified she had previously allowed Branson to contact her and to stay in her basement for about a week, and she had not reported those contacts.
- Branson argued that Hird’s consent to contact barred criminal liability for violating the PFA order; the trial court rejected the argument and convicted him after a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the protected party’s consent to contact is a defense to a charge of knowingly violating a protective order under K.S.A. 21-3843(a)(1).

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the protected party’s consent is not a defense to the crime of violating a protective order.
- The court reasoned that a PFA order is a judicial command enforceable by the State and may be changed only through court procedures, not by private agreement or informal consent.
- Because Branson was served with and warned about the order, his contact with Hird and presence at her locations supported a finding that he knowingly violated the order.

## Legal Principles

- A protective order issued under the Protection from Abuse Act binds the restrained party as a court order; compliance is not optional based on the protected party’s wishes.
- A protected party cannot unilaterally waive, suspend, or nullify a protection order for purposes of criminal enforcement.
- Modification or dissolution of a protection order must occur through the issuing court; absent court action, the defendant remains subject to the order’s terms.
- For the offense of violating a protective order, the State must prove a knowing violation of the order’s prohibitions; the protected party’s consent does not negate the violation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Branson’s conviction, holding that a victim’s consent to contact does not excuse or legalize a defendant’s knowing violation of a protection-from-abuse order, which remains enforceable until modified or terminated by the court.


State v. Branson, 167 P.3d 370 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007)