Ba v. United States
2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 600, 809 A.2d 1178, 2002 WL 31427260 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A protected party's temporary consent to contact, such as through reconciliation, does not permanently invalidate a Civil Protection Order (CPO). Once that consent is clearly revoked, any subsequent violation of the CPO's terms by the respondent constitutes a willful violation, as parties cannot unilaterally decide to disobey a court order that has not been formally modified or rescinded by a court.
Facts:
- In December 1999, Lashance Howard obtained a one-year Civil Protection Order (CPO) against her ex-boyfriend, Alassane Ba, which Ba consented to.
- The CPO ordered Ba not to contact Howard and to stay at least 100 feet away from her, her home, and her workplace.
- Shortly after the CPO was issued, from January to late March 2000, Howard and Ba reconciled and lived together at times.
- In late March 2000, Howard permanently ended the relationship with Ba.
- After the final breakup, Ba appeared at Howard's workplace, and she responded by calling the police.
- On May 13, 2000, at approximately 2:20 a.m., Ba went to Howard's home.
- As Howard was attempting to re-enter her home, Ba approached her, coming within six to twelve feet of her.
- A police officer who had been called to the scene witnessed the interaction and arrested Ba.
Procedural Posture:
- Alassane Ba was charged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with one count of violating a Civil Protection Order.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court judge found Ba guilty of the charge.
- Ba appealed his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest court for D.C. local matters.
- The Court of Appeals initially issued an opinion affirming the conviction.
- Upon receiving petitions for rehearing, the court vacated its initial opinion and granted a rehearing to specifically address whether consent was a valid defense under the circumstances.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's violation of a Civil Protection Order (CPO) constitute a willful violation when the parties had previously reconciled, but the protected party had since revoked any consent to contact?
Opinions:
Majority - Reid, Associate Judge
Yes. A defendant's violation of a CPO constitutes a willful violation even if the parties previously reconciled, because any informal consent given by the protected party is effectively revoked when they end the reconciliation and cease consensual contact. The court reasoned that while the parties' reconciliation between January and March 2000 might have complicated the issue of willfulness during that period, Howard clearly revoked her consent by the end of March. Her act of calling the police when Ba appeared at her job demonstrated this revocation. The court emphasized the principle that 'judicial orders are to be followed unless they’re changed by the Court,' and parties cannot unilaterally decide to ignore them. Because Ba knew the CPO was still legally in effect—having unsuccessfully attempted to have it vacated—his actions on May 13 in approaching Howard at her home were a willful violation of a valid court order.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal authority of court-issued protective orders, establishing that they remain in full force until formally modified or vacated by a court. It clarifies that a protected party's inconsistent behavior, such as a temporary reconciliation, does not give the restrained party a permanent defense of consent. The ruling protects victims by ensuring that consent can be revoked and that a CPO's protections are not permanently waived by a brief period of renewed contact. For future cases, this precedent means defendants cannot rely on informal understandings with the protected party; they must seek formal relief from the court to modify the order's terms.
