The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld the felony convictions of Jason Lance Webster for violating a no-contact order. The decision, issued on November 10, 2026, affects Webster, who was found guilty of two counts of felony violation of a no-contact order related to domestic violence. The court's ruling affirms the trial court's denial of Webster's request for a mistrial, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Webster was charged after he contacted his ex-girlfriend, K.A., shortly after being served with a temporary protection order. The case highlights the legal boundaries surrounding domestic violence and the enforcement of protective orders in Washington State. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of violating such orders, aiming to protect victims of domestic violence.

The background of the case reveals that on March 23, 2024, Webster was served with a temporary protection order intended to keep him away from K.A. However, he left her two voicemails shortly after receiving the order. K.A. reported these voicemails to law enforcement, leading to Webster's arrest and subsequent charges. The case proceeded to trial in October 2024, where the prosecution presented the voicemails as evidence against Webster.

During jury selection, a potential juror, identified as Juror 49, disclosed familiarity with Webster from their work in a jail. This comment prompted Webster's defense team to request a mistrial, arguing that the juror's statement could bias the jury against him. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the comment did not significantly prejudice the jury's ability to remain impartial.

The court ruled, "I just don’t think it had that much of an impact." The judge emphasized that the juror's comment was brief and did not provide details about Webster's past or the nature of his jail time. The judge also noted that the jury had already been informed about Webster's prior convictions for violating no-contact orders, which could have led to a reasonable inference about his past without the juror's comment.

In its ruling, the court considered several factors to determine whether the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the mistrial. These included the seriousness of the juror's comment, whether it involved cumulative evidence, and whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard the comment. The court found that the comment did not violate Webster's presumption of innocence and was not serious enough to warrant a mistrial.

The court noted that Juror 49's comment did not provide any details that would lead the jury to presume Webster's guilt. Additionally, the court found that the information presented during the trial, including Webster's prior convictions, was already known to the jury, making the juror's comment cumulative rather than prejudicial.

Furthermore, the court stated that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury specifically to disregard Juror 49's comment did not constitute grounds for a mistrial. The court maintained that the jury was presumed to follow the trial court's instructions to base their decision solely on the evidence presented during the trial.

Webster also raised additional claims in a statement of additional grounds, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. He claimed that K.A. had previously violated two no-contact orders protecting him and that he did not fully read the temporary protection order. However, the court rejected these claims, stating that knowledge of the specific terms of a no-contact order is not required for conviction.

The court explained that a defendant only needs to know that the no-contact order exists and that their willful contact with the protected individual violates the order. In Webster's case, his voicemails to K.A. demonstrated an understanding of the order's implications, undermining his argument that he lacked knowledge of the order's terms.

The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Webster's motion for a mistrial and affirmed the trial court's decision. This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities individuals have regarding no-contact orders and the consequences of violating them.

Looking ahead, the ruling may have implications for similar cases involving no-contact orders and domestic violence. It reaffirms the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the need for defendants to adhere to court orders. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for an appeal or related cases pending.