Clark v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 502
| D.C. | 2011Background
- CPO issued Sept 14, 2009 requiring 100-foot stay and prohibiting assault, threats, harassment, stalking, or property destruction.
- Appellant reconciled with complainant and contact occurred despite CPO, including visits to workplace and jail visits.
- January 30, 2010 altercation: complainant stabbed appellant with butter knife during a struggle; appellant caused backdoor damage and paint disfigurement.
- February 1, 2010 information charged appellant with simple assault, destruction of property, and violating the CPO by approaching and contacting the complainant.
- Trial court found complainant repeatedly contacted appellant in disregard of the CPO; defense argued consent negated CPO mens rea, but court rejected the affirmative defense.
- Appellant challenges the CPO conviction as violative of Double Jeopardy and argues consent defense was improperly rejected; the court upholds all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CPO violation merge with the other offenses under Double Jeopardy? | Clark argues double jeopardy merger applies to CPO and related offenses. | State argues Blockburger governs; offenses involve separate elements. | No plain error; convictions for separate acts maintained. |
| Is the CPO violation premised on a separate act from simple assault, avoiding merger under Blockburger? | Clark contends same conduct supports CPO and assault. | State maintains CPO violation was for different conduct (approaching/contact) than assault. | CPO violation and assault are separate offenses; not barred by double jeopardy. |
| Was the affirmative defense of complainant consent valid to negate the CPO violation? | Consent should negate CPO violation under equitable context. | Consent not a viable defense under Intrafamily Offenses Act or Shirley interpretation. | Consent defense rejected; no viable defense to CPO violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (Blockburger test for whether offenses are separate acts)
- Owens v. United States, 497 A.2d 1086 (D.C. 1985) (Merger analysis for separate acts under Double Jeopardy)
- Ellison v. United States, 919 A.2d 612 (D.C.2007) (Double Jeopardy and lesser-included offenses discussion)
- In re Shirley, 28 A.3d 506 (D.C.2011) (Consent not a bar to CPO criminal contempt; interpretation of Intrafamily Offenses Act)
- Davis v. United States, 834 A.2d 861 (D.C.2003) (Elements of a CPO violation require willful disobedience of the order)
- United States v. Moore, 158 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir.1998) (Discusses when affirmative defenses are implied by statute or common law)
- Green v. Green, 642 A.2d 1275 (D.C.1994) (Private right of action for contempt under CPOs; contextual relevance to enforcement)