[DV_listserv] Contempt caselaw

[Domestic Violence issues]

The below new case doesn't say anything new, but it is one more case for us that is helpful. Have a good long weekend everybody. --Erin

FYI

Contempt
Consent No Defense to Violation of Protection Order

Consent is not a defense to a charge of criminal contempt based on a violation of a civil protection order, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held June 16. (In re Shirley, D.C., No. 09-FM-1182, 6/16/11)
In this case, a protection order enjoined the defendant from contacting his estranged girlfriend "in any manner." The order prominently warned that failure to comply was a criminal offense and that only the court could modify the order. Evidence presented at the defendant's criminal contempt trial showed that the defendant and his girlfriend met several times to try to work out their problems. The defendant argued that he could not be guilty of contempt because the girlfriend consented to meet with him.
In Ba v. United States, 809 A.2d 1178 (D.C. 2002), the Court of Appeals acknowledged the question presented in this case but did not have to answer it. The Ba court decided that any consent the victim in that case might have given had been revoked before the defendant violated the protection order against him.
In an opinion by Judge Phyllis D. Thompson, the court now addressed the issue directly and held that consent cannot serve as a defense to a contempt charge arising out of a defendant's defiance of a CPO. Quoting from United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947), the court invoked the venerable rule that the orderly administration of justice demands that "an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings."
The defendant also argued that because the girlfriend had a private right to enforce the protection order, she must also have had the power to render it unenforceable. Rejecting this argument, the court said, "As we clarified recently, criminal contempt actions for enforcement of CPOs, even when brought by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of a respondent, 'ha[ve] to be brought in the name and pursuant to the sovereign power of the United States,' In re Robertson, [89 CrL 259 <http://news.bna.com/crln/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=21227278&fname=a0c7w6j6p2&vname=crl1notallissues> ], at *2 (D.C. May 19, 2011)." It pointed out that the public has an interest in preventing intrafamily violence via civil protection orders just as a CPO petitioner does.


*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20110701/de79daf8/attachment.html>