Reidy Taylor was charged with felony violation of a
no-contact order. Before trial, Taylor offered to stipulate
that a domestic violence no-contact order was in place and
that he knew of the order. The trial court rejected
Taylor's offered stipulation and admitted the no-contact
order into evidence at trial. The trial court reasoned that
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Old
Chief v. United States,  which requires a trial court to
accept a defendant's offered stipulation to the fact of a
prior felony conviction in a felon-in-possession prosecution,
did not apply to the admission of a domestic violence
no-contact order. The jury convicted Taylor as charged, and
the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Old
Chief applied to the admission of the no-contact order
and required that the trial court exclude the no-contact
order from evidence.
case presents an issue of first impression: Does the
rationale of Old Chief apply to a defendant's
offer to stipulate to a domestic violence no-contact order in
a felony violation of a no-contact order prosecution,
requiring the trial court to accept the offered stipulation
and exclude the order under ER 403? We decline to extend
Old Chief to felony violation of a no-contact order
prosecutions. The probative value of a domestic violence
no-contact order far outweighs any danger of unfair
prejudice: a no-contact order provides the specific
restrictions imposed on a defendant, is closely related to a
felony violation of a no-contact order charge, and is
evidence of multiple elements of that offense. Accordingly,
we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting Taylor's no-contact order into evidence, and we
reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals.
and his girlfriend, Anna,  began living together in January 2016.
Later that year, Taylor was convicted of a domestic violence
offense involving Anna. Following Taylor's conviction,
the Kittitas County Superior Court entered a domestic
violence no-contact order prohibiting Taylor from contacting
Anna, finding that Taylor "represented] a credible
threat to [her] physical safety." Pl.'s Ex. 35, at
2. The order also forbid Taylor from coming within 1, 000
feet of Anna's residence and prohibited Taylor from
assaulting or causing any bodily injury to Anna.
the no-contact order, Taylor and Anna resumed living
together. On December 25, less than one week after the
superior court entered the no-contact order, a neighbor saw
that Taylor and Anna were having a verbal altercation in the
driveway of their residence. Anna yelled out to the neighbor,
stating that Taylor had hit her and asking the neighbor to
call 911. Law enforcement responded to Taylor and Anna's
residence soon after. When they arrived, law enforcement
observed that Anna had bruising on her forehead and arms, a
cut on her hand, and a swollen, black eye. Anna reported that
Taylor had struck her in the head and face repeatedly.
State charged Taylor with felony violation of a no-contact
order predicated on his assault of Anna. Prior to trial,
Taylor offered to stipulate that there was a no-contact order
in place and that he knew of the no-contact order. Taylor
also argued that due to his offer to stipulate, the
no-contact order should be excluded from evidence at trial.
The State refused to join in Taylor's offered
stipulation. The trial court rejected Taylor's offer,
[T]he general rule is the defendant cannot force the state to
accept a stipulation. The exception to the general rule is
the Old Chief situation, when there's a
conviction, which is the thing that needs to be proven by the
state. Under that limited circumstance the defendant may
force the state to not be able to utilize the underlying ~
conviction via a stipulation.
That's not this situation.
Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 48. The trial court admitted
the no-contact order into evidence at trial. Taylor did not
object to the content or form of the no-contact order and did
not move to strike any portion of the order. The jury
ultimately found Taylor guilty of felony violation of a
appealed his conviction. Division Three of the Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that
the trial court abused its discretion under ER 403 by
rejecting Taylor's offered stipulation and admitting the
no-contact order into evidence. State v. Taylor, 4
Wn.App. 2d 381, 388-89, 421 P.3d 983 (2018). The Court of
Appeals determined that the rationale of Old Chief
applies to the admission of no-contact orders because a
no-contact order is relevant to prove only a defendant's
legal status. Id. at 388. The court further reasoned
that "the risk of unfair prejudice from admitting the
no-contact order substantially outweighed its probative
value" because "there was no additional probative
value to the no-contact order beyond Taylor's offered
stipulation." Id. at 389.
State petitioned this court for review, and we granted its
petition. State v. Taylor, 192 Wn.2d 1030 (2019).
Taylor moved to reverse the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
collection and criminal filing legal financial obligations
imposed against him pursuant to this court's decision in
State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714
(2018). We denied Taylor's motion without prejudice
"to raising the issue at a resentencing hearing in the
superior court." Order, State v. Taylor, No.
96325-8, at 1 (Wash. Feb. 20, 2019).
trial court abuse its discretion under ER 403 by rejecting
Taylor's offered stipulation and admitting a domestic
violence no-contact order into evidence in a ...