The Kitsap County conviction of a local man for breaching a domestic violence no-contact order was overturned on July 14, 2026, by an unpublished opinion from Division Two of the Washington State Court of Appeals. The appellate panel concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that a phone call made by an acquaintance to the man’s former spouse constituted indirect contact on his behalf. Consequently, the court reversed one count of violating a court order and sent the case back to Kitsap County Superior Court for resentencing.
The case centers on the relationship between Curry Mitchell Vancura and his ex-wife, Crystal Vancura, who were married for seven years and are the parents of a daughter with complex medical requirements. Post-divorce tensions were high, with the ex-wife alleging that Vancura frequently reached out at odd hours. She had previously installed a "No Trespassing" sign on her property to signal that unannounced visits were unwelcome.
The incident leading to the arrest occurred on May 2, 2024. After a 6:00 a.m. phone call in which Vancura demanded to see their daughter, he arrived at the ex-wife’s residence that evening. When asked to depart, he initially observed the home from the opposite side of the street before parking his vehicle to block the driveway. He then paced between his car and the house while shouting at her. Upon receiving a 911 call, responding officers discovered an AR-15 rifle in the backseat of Vancura’s truck and a long knife in the center console. He was taken into custody at the Kitsap County Jail, and his vehicle was towed.
Following the arrest, the superior court issued a pretrial no-contact order. This order prohibited Vancura from communicating with his ex-wife in person or via phone, mail, or any other direct or indirect means, allowing for exceptions only for legal service of process and communication through his attorneys.
While incarcerated, Vancura arranged to sell his towed truck to a friend, Charles Barnett, over a recorded jail phone line. On May 14, 2024, Vancura offered the vehicle for $1,000, noting that it likely had a broken shift slider which he intended to repair. He explained that his attorney would attempt to locate the truck, but since he was barred from contacting his ex-wife directly, he asked Barnett to call her. Vancura instructed Barnett to identify himself as the buyer who needed to know the truck’s location to retrieve it.
The following day, Vancura provided Barnett with the ex-wife’s phone number and reiterated his instructions. Barnett called the ex-wife later that day and reported the transaction. The ex-wife reported the interaction to police.
The state subsequently filed seven charges against Vancura, all designated as domestic violence offenses. These included stalking with a weapon, harassment, second-degree criminal trespass, attempted residential burglary, and two counts of violating a court order. The appellate court’s decision specifically addressed the count regarding the indirect contact via the friend, finding that the record did not establish that Barnett was acting as a messenger for Vancura rather than seeking information for his own benefit as the new owner of the vehicle.
A Kitsap County jury recently cleared Vancura of charges including stalking, harassment, and attempted residential burglary. The panel convicted him of second-degree criminal trespass and two counts of violating a court order. Prior to the trial, the defendant had entered a guilty plea for driving without a required ignition interlock device.
The appellate court recently focused its review on the second order violation, which stemmed from a telephone call made to a woman identified as Crystal by a man identified as Barnett. Vancura argued on appeal that the state failed to provide sufficient proof that he knowingly initiated or attempted to initiate contact with Crystal through Barnett.
Barnett did not take the stand during the original trial. The defense successfully objected to testimony regarding the specific content of the phone call on hearsay grounds, and the trial judge sustained the objection. Consequently, the jury received limited information about the actual conversation. The only audio evidence presented to the jury consisted of recorded jail calls between Vancura and Barnett.
In the opinion, Judge Rebecca Glasgow recognized that Vancura acted intentionally when he provided Barnett with the phone number and instructed him to make the call. The judge also noted that Vancura was aware of the no-contact order, as he referenced it during the recorded conversation.
However, the court distinguished between facilitating a third party’s independent contact and directing contact through a third party. The available evidence indicated that Barnett made the call for his own reasons: to locate a truck he had recently agreed to purchase. While the no-contact order barred Vancura from communicating with Crystal via intermediaries, it did not prevent a third party from reaching out to her for their own purposes, such as identifying a vehicle they had bought.
Glasgow wrote that there was no evidence proving Barnett’s call constituted contact by Vancura through a third party. She noted that the record did not specify what Barnett said, nor was there any indication that he conveyed he was calling on Vancura’s behalf.
The panel reversed the conviction on the second order violation count and sent the case back for resentencing. The other convictions, including the first order violation, were not part of the appeal. Judges Anne Cruser and Erik Price joined in the opinion.
Vancura was represented by Moses Ouma Okeyo of the Washington Appellate Project in Seattle. The state was represented by Randall Avery Sutton of the Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in Port Orchard. The original trial was presided over by Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Jennifer A. Forbes.
As the opinion is unpublished, it does not serve as binding precedent under Washington court rules, though it remains part of the public record.