Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 9:  Violation of a Protective Order

December 20, 2020

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Domestic assault charges are bad enough but those charges come with the ability to often defend the case over things such as exaggerated accusations, self-defense or consent.  Violation of a Protective Order, by contrast, is not only more cut and dry factually but it also threatens some of the leniency we might be seeking.

VPO charges typically only hinge on whether the accused made contact with the complaining witness which can simply be proven-up by phone or text records.  Or, if the accused came to the house and wasn’t supposed to be within 200 yards then the case is as simple for the prosecution as calling the complaining witness to testify about it or a police officer if one was called to the scene.

It is often the case where, ironically, the underlying assault is easier to deal with than the Violation of a Protective Order charge.

Notice

One key component of VPO arrests is the prosecution does have to prove Defendant had notice of the order.  The order is typically done by a magistrate judge while the person is in custody for the assault.  The order is often placed in the person’s property as they are leaving the jail for the assault arrest.

I’ve unfortunately seen many VPO charges based on the accused being released from jail and then calling the complaining witness from the hallway in the jail as they are leaving.

Penalties for Violating a Protective Order

VPO is generally a class a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and a fine not to exceed $4k (the same as the most common arrest for domestic violence – assault causing bodily injury).

Multiple violations of a protective order obviously up the ante and make it a felony.  Tex.Pen.C. 25.072 make repeated protective order violations a 3rd degree felony (between 2 and 10 years TDC).  This is if a protective order has been violated two or more times.

The “Protected Person” Cannot Invalidate or Give Permission to Violate

The legislature requires a specific admonishment be in all protective orders.  They anticipated almost all common scenarios and cut them off as defenses for those accused. Specifically that no person can give permission to violate the protective order.

A more confounding issue is what happens when the protected person is the one who continually attempts and solicitations the violation of the protective order.  Does it make that person a co-conspirator?  A party to the offense?  The issue can be really confounding.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 

Comments Off on Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 9:  Violation of a Protective Order | Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record, Deadly Conduct, Divorce related crimes, Domestic Violence, protective order, Uncategorized, violation of a protective order | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 3: What Constitutes a Dating or Household Relationship?

December 14, 2020

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

There are two legal components to assault/ family violence cases.  The first I discussed yesterday when I generally outlined what the legal definition of assault was.  The second component is what constitutes a household or dating relationship?

If there is a “household or dating relationship” it triggers an “affirmative finding of family violence” or “AFFV”  This is what separates domestic assaults legally from ordinary assaults.  The AFFV is what gives spousal or domestic abuse the additional severity.

The Legalese of Affirmative Findings of Family Violence

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.013 requires a court to make an affirmative finding of family violence if the offense constituted family violence under Texas Family Code. 71.004.

Turning to the definition of 71.004, family violence is defined as:

(1) an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself;
(2) abuse, as that term is defined by Sections 261.001(1)(C), (E), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (M), by a member of a family or household toward a child of the family or household; or
(3) dating violence, as that term is defined by Section 71.0021.
Digging into Tex.Fam.C. 71.0021, it is very clear the relationship includes persons who are currently engaged in a dating relationship as well as from a relationship in the past:
(a) “Dating violence” means an act, other than a defensive measure to protect oneself, by an actor that:
(1) is committed against a victim or applicant for a protective order:
(A) with whom the actor has or has had a dating relationship; or
(B) because of the victim’s or applicant’s marriage to or dating relationship with an individual with whom the actor is or has been in a dating relationship or marriage; and
(2) is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the victim or applicant in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault.
(b) For purposes of this title, “dating relationship” means a relationship between individuals who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on consideration of:
(1) the length of the relationship;
(2) the nature of the relationship; and
(3) the frequency and type of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
(c) A casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context does not constitute a “dating relationship” under Subsection (b).
In Plain English
In the vast majority of cases there is no issue as to whether this is domestic violence or not.  But the matter can get cloudy.  What about roommates?  There are no cases reported where a complaining witness is a roommate, but legally the point could be debatable.  Also, the term “family member” can mean adult children who no longer live within the house.  So a fistfight between adult siblings or parents at the family Christmas party could be considered domestic violence.
*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Domestic Violence Charges – Blog 3: What Constitutes a Dating or Household Relationship? | crimes against children, Deadly Conduct, Divorce related crimes, Domestic Violence, Emergency Protective Orders, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Study: U.S. Police Interrogation Methods Flawed

July 3, 2012

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

texasdefensefirm.com

(972) 369-0577

Bigfoot… UFOs… False confessions…  all three concepts are far-fetched nutty theories any police officer or prosecutor will tell you doesn’t exist (normally as they roll their eyes).

This article, “Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions” published by the British Psychological Society, however, shows the topic is no laughing matter.  Not only do false confessions exist, but American law enforcement recklessly, intentionally, or obliviously utilizes pressure tactics proven to alarmingly raise the chances an innocent person questions their own innocence or attempts to extricate themselves from a psychologically terrifying situation and ultimately admits to a crime they didn’t commit.

The contributing factors according to the article include (but aren’t limited to) (1) a presumption of guilt by the interrogator; (2) focusing on traits of deceitfulness rather than traits of truthful responses; (3) unreliability of traits associated with being deceitful; (4) presenting the accused with false evidence or bluffing about unknown evidence; (5) minimizing or distorting the degree of the crime (implied leniency); (6) sleep deprivation and/or isolation; and (7) the psychological profile of the person confessing (whether factors such as susceptibility to anxiety, age, or cognitive ability play a role).

The article is obviously far more comprehensive than any editorial or summary I could write on the topic.  One of the most striking studies the paper cites is the “forbidden key” study where people are told that hitting a particular “forbidden” key on a keyboard will cause a computer to crash.  As the study goes, the computer used crashes and the person is blamed for hitting the forbidden key even though they were known not to have.  Though the tests were varied several different ways, techniques such as minimization, alleging of false evidence, or even bluffing that incriminating evidence would likely be found later all dramatically increased and in some instances doubled the false confession rate as high as 94% — the subjects internalizing and questioning their own innocence.  And as a scary afterthought — the article also discusses how judges and juries are very inadequate safeguards to bad confessions.

The article ultimately discusses the use of a British technique designed to be more open-ended and less judgmental in nature than the techniques used in the U.S.

It is a fascinating topic for anyone who wants to clinically study the psychology behind police work and behind a person confessing.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  Communications sent through this forum are not privileged and do not create an attorney-client relationship.  For any specific legal situation you should consult an attorney directly.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

Can I Recant a Police Statement?

June 20, 2012

By Collin County Criminal Defense Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

texasdefensefirm.com

Generally speaking a statement made to police in the course of an investigation can be considered by the police, a judge, or a jury for it’s full meaning.  Recanting the statement might call the original statement into question… then again it might not.

Who Made the Statement?

Statements of the Accused

Important in the analysis is who made the statement, what role that person plays in the proceedings, and the timing of the statement or statements.

A statement by an accused is referred to as an admission by a party opponent under Tex.R.Evid. 801(e)(2).  If the statement is relevant to a jury then it’s fully admissible.  The person or person(s) the statement was made to can testify to what was said by the accused or can have a written statement admitted.

Practically speaking, an accused and his or her lawyer would have to explain their reason for recanting such a statement although the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant under any circumstance.  Many judges and jurors would be naturally skeptical — and police tend to believe statements which fit their theory of the case.

Witness Statements

A statement by a witness or an alleged victim is a different and far more complicated matter.  The defendant in a case has the right to confront accusers in open court.  A witness who gives inconsistent statements to police — or attempts to recant a previous statement to police could be impeached or cross examined on the inconsistent statements before a judge or jury.

Suppressions of Statements

An accused’s remedy to have a prior statement nullified is usually a motion to suppress.  This would be in a situation where the original statement was taken illegally in violation of Miranda rights (or in Texas known as Tex.Code.Crim.P. Art. 38.22).  Those provisions do not apply to statements made prior to custodial interrogation (arrest).

Warnings about Inconsistent, Changed, or Recanted Statements to Law Enforcement

Depending on the situation — a person might not have a duty to cooperate with law enforcement.  An accused person, for example, always has the right to remain silent.  If you are cooperating with law enforcement, however, you have the legal duty to do so honestly.  Making inconsistent statements or admitting that previous statements were false could result in a person being prosecuted for criminal offenses of making false statements to law enforcement, obstruction of justice, or even perjury in some circumstances.

If you’re in the situation where you are considering in good faith recanting or amending a statement to law enforcement — you should have an attorney involved to counsel you.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice.  For legal advice about this or any circumstance you should contact an attorney directly.  Contacting the attorney through this forum does not create an attorney-client relationship nor are communications or postings in this forum privileged.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

What is a Mistrial?

April 20, 2012

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

texasdefensefirm.com

A mistrial is a declaration the judge makes to immediately halt and end a trial in progress.  Normally a mistrial is declared when a circumstance arises that taints the process beyond repair.  In certain situations, a mistrial can also result in an acquittal of a criminal defendant due to the concept of double jeopardy, but most merely result in the case being reset to a new trial status as if the mistrial had never taken place.

The circumstances which could cause a mistrial are seemingly endless.  More common reasons for mistrials are hung juries (meaning the jury couldn’t decide a case unanimously after a lengthy deliberation), or what is known as a “busted panel” which means after jury selection there were not enough qualified jurors to form a complete jury.  Other common reasons are improper arguments by a party, unexpected or improper comments from a witness, and on some occasions juror misconduct.

A judge has wide discretion to declare a mistrial if there is a “manifest necessity” to declare a mistrial.  Mistrials can be granted sua sponte (the judge declaring the mistrial without either party asking for it), or by either of the parties.

It is legally complex in situations where the Defendant requests a mistrial based on a prosecutor’s conduct during the trial as to whether double-jeopardy will bar retrial.  This is because, as a general rule, courts consider requesting a mistrial as a waiver of double-jeopardy.

The standard today for whether a mistrial requested by the defense should also cause a double-jeopardy bar is from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) which holds that where the prosecutor baits or goads the defense into requesting a mistrial — then the defendant doesn’t waive double jeopardy by requesting a mistrial.

The easiest way to think about a mistrial triggering a double jeopardy dismissal is like an intentional foul in a basketball game.  One team has the ball and has a clear path to the basket.  In order to prevent an easy basket or layup, the other team fouls.  A prosecutor, thinking they have lost the case, makes a flagrant comment, asks an inappropriate question, or takes some other action to force defendant to request a mistrial so they can have another shot at prosecuting the defendant.  Courts in this situation can end the trial right there and bar the state from re-prosecution (essentially acquitting the accused).

*Jeremy Rosenthal is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. Nothing in this article is intended to be legal advice. For legal advice about any situation, you should contact an attorney directly.  Posts made to this blog and/or communications sent through this forum are not confidential nor subject to the attorney client privilege.  Contacting the author through this forum does not create an attorney-client relationship.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jeremy Rosenthal, Esq.

« Previous Entries