BA V. UNITED STATES 809 A.2d 1178 (2002) CASE BRIEF

BA V. UNITED STATES

809 A.2d 1178 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Ba (D) petitioned for rehearing of his conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia of violating a civil protection order (CPO) under D.C. Code Ann. 16-1004, -1005 (2001).

FACTS: Lashance Howard filed a petition and affidavit for a CPO against D, her ex-boyfriend of four years. D signed a Consent CPO Without Admissions, which was effective for a twelve-month period. The CPO ordered D not to 'assault, threaten, harass, or physically abuse [Ms. Howard] in any manner,' to 'stay at least 100 feet away from [Ms. Howard], [her] home [and her] workplace[,]' and prohibited him from contacting her 'in any manner.' The CPO further explicitly warned that: 'Any and every failure to comply with this order is punishable as criminal contempt and/or as a criminal misdemeanor and may result in imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.' D was charged with one count of violation of a CPO, which allegedly occurred on May 13, 2000. A hearing on this charge took place on July 14, 2000. Testimony revealed that sometime after the order had been entered she and D lived together while the CPO still was in effect, and when they were attempting to work out problems in their relationship. During this period, Ms. Howard and D sometimes stayed at his place of residence and sometimes at Ms. Howard's home. The two continued to reside together until March 2000. D's testimony confirmed that he and Ms. Howard reconciled after the CPO took effect on December 29, 1999. He testified that he and Ms. Howard lived together, at times, from January 2000 to late March 2000. Ms. Howard stated that as of March D knew the relationship was completely over. After the relationship ended in March, D showed up at [her] job. [She] called the police, and the next day D issued a restraining order against [her].' Ms. Howard's testimony addressed possible phone harassment and stalking. She called the police and after the officer left, D appeared, approached and came 'within six feet' of Ms. Howard. As Ms. Howard 'tried to get in the door,' the officer returned and inquired whether the man standing near Ms. Howard was D When Ms. Howard 'replied yes,' the officer 'pulled out his weapon.' At that time, D was about 'ten feet, twelve feet' from Ms. Howard. Officer David arrested him. D contends he just went to the home to talk with Ms. Howard. The trial judge expressed the view that D had 'just made a judicial admission of guilt . . . .' Defense counsel replied that: 'The defense is . . . that this was not a willful violation because of the fact that Ms. Howard in fact [caused] him to violate this order by changing their living arrangements. She lived with him during the time this order was in place from time to time.' The trial judge retorted, in part: 'The Court's understanding is that judicial orders are to be followed unless they're changed by the Court. People can't unilaterally decide to disobey Court orders.' D was found guilty of violating the CPO. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner