Justices uphold no-contact order

Court protection for woman married to man who raped her daughters

CURT WOODWARD; The Associated Press

E-Mail

Print Reprint

Text Size:

tool goes here

A convicted child molester can be permanently banned from contacting his wife, even though she was not a direct victim of his crimes, the state Supreme Court said Thursday.

The 8-1 ruling came in the case of Richard H. Warren, who was convicted of child molestation and child rape against two stepdaughters, in two separate King County Superior Court trials in 2003.

As part of Warren’s sentence, he was ordered to have no contact with the girls’ mother for life. Warren argued that the no-contact order was not reasonably related to his crime, and was an unconstitutional violation of his marriage rights.

A ruling from the state Supreme Court allows a no-contact order that keeps a man convicted of raping his stepdaughters away from the girls’ mother – his wife.

But the court, taking up the issue for the first time, disagreed.

The majority found that keeping Warren away from the girls’ mother was directly related to his crimes.

“She is the mother of the two child victims of sexual abuse for which Warren was convicted,” Justice Tom Chambers wrote for the court. “Warren attempted to induce her not to cooperate in the prosecution of the crime; and (she) testified against Warren resulting in his conviction of the crime.”

Moreover, the court said, limiting Warren’s marriage rights was reasonably necessary to achieve the compelling state interest of protecting the girls and their mother.

The majority acknowledged that Washington courts “have been reluctant to uphold no-contact orders with classes of persons different from the victim of the crime.”

The court also pointed out that sentences which infringe on a fund- amental right — such as the right to marriage — must be drawn narrowly: “There must be no reasonable alternative way to achieve the state’s interest.”

Tailoring its decision closely to the case at hand, the court said that “under these unique facts” it could approve the no-contact order applying to Warren’s wife.

Justice Richard Sanders disagreed with the no-contact sentence, saying “there is no evidence such an order was actually necessary to further the goal of rehabilitating Warren or protecting the public.”

The court split 5-4 on another issue presented in Warren’s appeal: whether prosecutors made improper statements during the trial that were egregious enough to overturn a conviction. The majority said that, while some statements from the prosecution were improper, Warren didn’t establish prejudice.