In State v. Mott, 166 Vt. 188, 692 A.2d 360 (1997), defendant argued that he could not be convicted for contacting his former wife by mail in violation of an abuse prevention order because he was unaware of the order and could not have intended to violate it. The Court held that intent to violate the order is not an element of the crime, and affirmed the conviction. 166 Vt. at 197, 692 A.2d at 366. In so holding, the Court concluded that the trial court had correctly instructed the jury that the State must show only that defendant intended to do the act that constituted the violation; the violation could not result from a mistake, an accident, or a misunderstanding. See Mott, 166 Vt. at 197, 692 A.2d at 365-66.