ID court rules man can face felony stalking charge
Recent Cases
The Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled that allegedly violating a Washington-issued no-contact order is sufficient to elevate charges against an Idaho man to felony first-degree stalking.
The judges on Friday reversed a 2nd District Court decision that had reduced charges against Paul Carey Hartzell to second-degree stalking, a misdemeanor.
According to court documents, a counselor who lived in Washington but worked in Idaho sought a no-contact order preventing Hartzell from contacting her for a year.
That's after he allegedly made unwanted advances, including at her home.
Initially charged with first-degree stalking, a judge reduced the charges against Hartzell.
That didn't sit well with prosecutors.
The Appeals Court agreed, ruling unanimously the district court judge erred by concluding the Washington state order couldn't elevate the Idaho charge to first-degree stalking.
Related listings
-
Conn. court declines to address email warrants
Recent Cases 06/07/2013The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to address whether state judges can issue search warrants for email accounts maintained by out-of-state companies like Google. The court took up the issue in the case of former Monroe youth minister David Es...
-
Court: US can keep bin Laden photos under wraps
Recent Cases 05/23/2013A federal appeals court is backing the U.S. government’s decision not to release photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden during and after a raid in which the terrorist leader was killed by U.S. commandos. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit C...
-
Appeals court allows capital retrial of Wolfe
Recent Cases 05/22/2013A federal appeals court will allow a capital murder case to proceed against an accused drug kingpin from northern Virginia. In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned a federal judge in Norfolk who had ordered a hal...
Does a car or truck accident count as a work injury?
If an employee is injured in a car crash while on the job, they are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. “On the job” injuries are not limited to accidents and injuries that happen inside the workplace, they may also include injuries suffered away from an employee’s place of work while performing a job-related task, such as making a delivery or traveling to a client meeting.
Regular commutes to and from work don’t usually count. If you get into an accident on your way in on a regular workday, it’s probably not considered a work injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation.
If you drive around as part of your job, an injury on the road or loading/unloading accident is likely a work injury. If you don’t typically drive around for work but are required to drive for the benefit of your employer, that would be a work injury in many cases.
If you are out of town for work, pretty much any driving would count as work related. For traveling employees, any accidents or injuries that happen on a work trip, even while not technically working, can be considered a work injury. The reason is because you wouldn’t be in that town in the first place, had you not been on a work trip.
Workers’ compensation claims for truck drivers, traveling employees and work-related injuries that occur away from the job site can be challenging and complex. At Krol, Bongiorno & Given, we understand that many families depend on the income of an injured worker, and we are proud of our record protecting the injured and disabled. We have handled well over 30,000 claims for injured workers throughout the state of Illinois.