In Re Shirley
28 A.3d 506
| D.C. | 2011Background
- In December 2008, Brown obtained a civil protection order (CPO) against Shirley, effective for one year.
- Brown testified that she and Shirley continued a romantic relationship and attempted to reconcile after the December 2008 CPO.
- On April 3-4, 2009, while the CPO was in effect, Brown and Shirley engaged in a lunch date and subsequent arguments; Brown attempted to go home but was persuaded to stay.
- April 4–5, 2009, Shirley texted and called Brown despite the CPO; Brown eventually notified police and sought help.
- Shirley was convicted at a bench trial of three counts of criminal contempt for contacting Brown by text and calls on April 4–5, 2009.
- Brown testified inconsistently about the threats; the court relied on Shirley initiating the contacts and found willful disobedience of the CPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent by Brown negates CPO contempt | Brown's consent to reconciliation effectively nullifies the CPO's effect. | Brown's consent could excuse violations and modify the CPO. | Consent defense rejected; conviction affirmed. |
| Whether the government proved subject-matter jurisdiction for contempt | No proof Brown resided, worked, or studied in DC; violations may not have occurred in DC. | Enforcement jurisdiction does not require residency or local occurrence for contempt; the order issued by DC court governs enforcement. | Jurisdiction established; DC court could punish contempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Ferreira, 741 A.2d 1046 (D.C. 1999) (court may convict for contempt even without beneficiary interest; broad court power)
- Ba v. United States, BA not provided (D.C. 2002) (consent defense discussed; not decided here)
- Hooks v. United States, 977 A.2d 938 (D.C. 2009) (elements of CPO violation require willful disobedience)
- In re Sobin, 934 A.2d 372 (D.C. 2007) (consideration of humanitarian/compelling defenses)
- Joiner-Die v. United States, 899 A.2d 762 (D.C. 2006) (presumption of district-derived offense; venue and jurisdiction principles)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (jurisdictional de novo review; statutory interpretation)