In re Ferguson
54 A.3d 1150
D.C.2012Background
- Keeton petitioned for a CPO against Ferguson in September 2008; the court issued a CPO on October 22, 2008 prohibiting contact except regarding the child and visitation logistics.
- Keeton testified that on December 24, 2008 Ferguson called about a Christmas present and asked if she would be home, prompting concern that the call exceeded the CPO scope.
- Keeton testified that on January 1, 2009 Ferguson called and said “Happy New Year,” and she told him not to talk, ending the call; trial court later relied on this for a separate contempt finding.
- At trial, defense conceded guilt for the December 24 call but not for the January 1 or January 3 calls; Ferguson gave no testimony about the December 24 or January 1 calls.
- The court convicted Ferguson of two CPO violations (December 24 and January 1 calls) but later this opinion reverses one conviction and affirms the other.
- On appeal, the court affirms the December 24 conviction as supported by the record, but reverses the January 1 conviction due to insufficient proof of willful violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the December 24, 2008 call violate the CPO? | Keeton argues the call breached the CPO as not solely about the child or visitation. | Ferguson contends the call was permitted under the CPO if it related to the child or visitation logistics. | Affirmed; December 24 call supported by evidence as violating the CPO. |
| Did the January 1, 2009 call violate the CPO? | Keeton argues the call was not permitted because intent and purpose are unclear and it was not about the child. | Ferguson contends the call was within the CPO’s permissible scope if related to the child or visitation, or at least not willfully disobedient. | Reversed; evidence insufficient to prove willful violation beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the government proved willful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt overall? | Keeton contends the state presented sufficient evidence for willful violation. | Ferguson argues the record does not establish willful intent to violate the CPO for the challenged dates. | In part; standard of review requires sufficient evidence of willful disobedience; January 1 conviction reversed, December 24 affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. United States, 977 A.2d 938 (DC 2009) (elements and proof of contempt for CPO violations; willful disobedience required)
- Davis v. United States, 834 A.2d 861 (DC 2003) (clarifies evidence sufficiency and reasonable-doubt standard)
- In re Jones, 898 A.2d 916 (DC 2006) (ambiguous contact with protected party may require redounding to beneficiary)
- Ba v. United States, 809 A.2d 1178 (DC 2002) (evidence standard for contempt proceedings in CPO cases)
- Consoli, 792 N.E.2d 1007 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (greeting by recipient can be incidental and not a violation if reasonable)