Source: https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/tag/domestic-violence/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-11-14 11:03:48
Document Index: 371805056

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 42', '§ 22', '§ 42', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§924', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§922', '§922']

Domestic Violence Archives | Page 2 of 2 | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys and Personal Injury Lawyers
Acquitted of the Underlying Assault that Necessitated a 911 Call, Defendant’s Guilty Verdict for Interference with 911 Call Upheld, Says the Second Court of Appeals
In February 2014, David Schumm and his wife were arguing in their home when she tried to place a 911 call. His wife testified that he prevented her from making the call by taking her cell phone. Fearing an assault, she ran outside, screaming for help. Schumm allegedly followed her outside, dragged her onto their porch and “strangled” her. At trial, Schumm denied all assaultive conduct and denied taking her cell phone. Schumm was charged in two separate cases with Interference with 911 Call and with Assault Family Violence with Impeding Breath. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.062 and § 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2015). Schumm was acquitted of the felony assault charge at trial.
At a separate trial for the Interference with a 911 Call charge, the jury was allowed to hear that Schumm had been accused and tried for felony assault, however, the jury was not allowed to hear that he had been acquitted of the charge. Schumm’s attorney attempted to get a certified judgment of acquittal admitted into evidence, but the State’s relevance objection was upheld—the trial court prevented Schumm from disclosing to the jury his acquittal. Schumm appealed his conviction for Interference with a 911 Call on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence of the felony assault acquittal.
Read the court’s opinion in Schumm v. State.
Interference with 911 Call | Interference with an Emergency Call
Under Texas Law, to be found guilty of interfering with an emergency call an (1) individual (2) knowingly (3) prevents or interferes with (4) another individual’s (5) ability to place an emergency call or to request help, including with a cell phone (6) from a law enforcement agency, (7) in an emergency…[“a condition in which an individual is…in fear of imminent assault.”]. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.062(a)-(d).
Appealing to the Second Court of Appeals, Schumm argues that the excluded evidence of his acquittal is relevant to the element of “emergency” (#7 above). He contends that because he was acquitted of “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing” of his wife, that there was no proof that an emergency actually existed, and that, because no emergency existed, not all of the elements of “interfering with an emergency call” have been fulfilled. In short, there is reasonable doubt that an emergency existed at all because he was acquitted of the underlying assault, and, because the trial testimony is her word against his.
Here, the Second Court of Appeals disagrees with Schumm, “yet the judgment of the acquittal [Schumm] sought to admit did not show that the felony jury had specifically found no emergency.” The jury did not find that Schumm’s wife was not in fear of an imminent assault at the time Schumm allegedly prevented her from using her cell phone. Instead, the felony jury found that the Schumm should be acquitted of the “assault by impeding breathing” charge. The Court notes that “emergency is not an element of assault by impeding breathing” and a “completed assault is not an element of the offense of interference with an emergency call.” Id. In short, the evidence had no bearing on whether Schumm’s wife feared an imminent assault when she tried to call 911; the Court does not address the possibility that there is reasonable doubt that an emergency existed in the first place. The Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of guilty.
Tarrant County’s “No Drop” Policy on Family Violence Cases
How Do I Drop a Family Violence Case in Tarrant County?
In our practice as criminal defense lawyers, we often get calls about Family Violence (Assault of a Family Member) cases. These cases typically result from an argument that got out of hand, wherein one party called the police to help diffuse the situation, not knowing that the police would take someone to jail. Many times there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding whether the “victim” of the alleged assault can “drop” the case after the other person is arrested and charged with Family Violence.
In Fort Worth, the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office has a “No-Drop Policy” on Family Violence cases. The No Drop Policy basically means is that once the case is filed with the District Attorney’s office, it is NOT the alleged victim’s choice whether to drop the charges. It is entirely in the prosecutor’s discretion how to handle the case if the victim does not want to go forward.
Despite the No Drop Policy, there are things that an alleged victim can do to express his or her desire that the case not be prosecuted. This begins with the Alternatives Class offered through Safe Haven. Before the District Attorney’s office will allow an alleged victim to sign an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution, they require that the alleged victim attend this 4-hour class.
After the alleged victim attends the Alternatives Class at Safe Haven, he or she may then elect to speak with the victim coordinator at the District Attorney’s Office. In this interview, the alleged victim will be allowed to talk with the victim coordinator and tell them why they believe the case should not be prosecuted. This is also the time in which the alleged victim will sign the Affidavit of Non-Prosecution.
These steps can go a long way in achieving a favorable outcome on domestic violence cases. If you or a loved one needs help navigating these options, please call us today. We handle Family Violence cases on a daily basis and have a proven track record of good results. Some helpful numbers are contained below.
Alternatives Class at Safe Haven – (817) 536-5496
Tarrant County Victim Coordinator – (817) 884-3535
The World Needs More Andy Taylors
I grew up with Sheriff Andy Taylor. And his trusty sidekick Deputy Barney Fife. If you’ve never seen the Andy Griffith Show, shame on you. It is an American classic about life in the small rural town of Mayberry, North Carolina. I would venture to say I’ve seen every episode (the black & white ones) at least four times each (syndicated reruns of course, because the show originally aired in the ’60s).
One of the things I loved about Sheriff Andy Taylor was his innate sense of right and wrong. While Barney Fife was out there trying to arrest jaywalkers and moonshiners and everyone else who broke a minor municipal code, Andy saw the big picture. Andy may have very well been justified to make arrests or detain citizens for investigation, but he was more concerned with what was right and decent. And when he suspected or observed actual criminal activity he took action.
As criminal defense lawyers in Fort Worth, Texas, we read police reports every single day. In many of the police reports we read, the officer’s actions are more akin to Barney Fife than Andy Taylor. I get the feeling that many officers have the mindset of “arrest everybody and let the DA sort it out.” When officers are called out on a family assault or domestic violence call, somebody is getting arrested. Period. The officers don’t try to deescalate the situation or truly figure out what the couple needs. They generally listen to the parties and arrest the one that has fewer injuries (regardless of which person may have called the police).
We’ve also seen numerous arrests of young people for committing youthful hijinks, such as trespassing on school property. Sheriff Taylor would have taken the kid home and made him tell his parents what he was doing. He wouldn’t arrest the kid. But officers in DFW are making arrests in these scenarios.
Of course, we only see the cases where there are arrests. There may indeed be officers out there that are getting it right. But, we still see too many arrests when something less would have achieved the right result. Don’t get me wrong. We’re not against law and order. We are champions of justice, and justice does not always mean arrest and prosecution. Perhaps the police academy training should begin with a rerun of The Andy Griffith Show. Personally, I recommend the episode where the cow thief was putting shoes on the cows.
Unanimous Verdict Not Required for Continuous Family Violence
Domestic Violence Case Law Update. Continuous Family Violence.
Except for the military context, you’ve always heard that a jury verdict must be unanimous, right? Well, not exactly.
Recently, the Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) held that a jury does not have to unanimously agree upon which assaults occurred in order to convict a defendant for Continuous Family Violence, as long as the jury agrees that the defendant committed at least two assaults within the time allotted by statute. Under section 25.11 of the Texas Penal Code, a person who assaults a family member two or more times within twelve months commits Continuous Family Violence. The relevant statutes provides:
In Hill v. State, the appellant was charged with Continuous Family Violence after the State alleged that the appellant assaulted his girlfriend three times on two different dates within a twelve-month period. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and on appeal, the appellant contended that the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury that in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree upon which assaults transpired. Thus, of the possible assaults that may have happened, the appellant argued that some of the jurors cannot find sufficient evidence for one assault and the other jurors find sufficient evidence for another because “it is axiomatic that Texas law requires a unanimous verdict in a felony case.”
Nevertheless, the Court rejected this reasoning. The State advocated following the way of the Continuous Sexual Abuse statute and allow jurors to not unanimously agree on which assaults occurred, so long as the jury agrees beyond a reasonable doubt that at least two assaults did occur within twelve months of each other. Adopting this rationale, the Court ultimately held, “In the circumstances of construing the statute under examination here, it is sufficient to allow a jury to select from a menu of possible bad acts and agree that a defendant committed two of them without the concomitant requirement that the jurors be shown to all concur as to which of the acts did occur.”
As such, as long as a jury unanimously agrees that a defendant assaulted a family member at least twice within twelve months, it does not need to agree upon which assaults actually occurred. (Note: this same logic applies to continuous sexual abuse cases as well.)
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of “Domestic Violence” for Lautenberg
Issue presented to the Court: Whether Appellant’s state court assault conviction qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” thereby prohibiting him from possessing a firearm under federal law (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9)).
United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014)- In 1996, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), which criminalizes the possession of firearms by certain individuals. This section makes it a federal crime for a person convicted in state court of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to own, possess, or transfer a firearm if the misdemeanor involved the use or attempted use of physical force. In 2001, James Castleman was convicted in Tennessee of misdemeanor domestic assault for “intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child.” In 2008, federal agents learned that Castleman was selling firearms on the black market. A grand jury indicted Castleman on two counts of possession of a firearm in violation of §922(g)(9) because of his previous “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” conviction.
Castleman moved to dismiss the §922(g)(9) charges, arguing that his Tennessee conviction did not qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because it did not have the “use of physical force” element under §922(g)(9). The District Court agreed and dismissed the §922(g)(9) counts, reasoning that Castleman’s misdemeanor domestic assault conviction did not qualify as a crime of domestic violence because ‘physical force’ must entail violent contact and that one can cause bodily injury without violent contact, e.g., by poisoning. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on different grounds. It held that the degree of physical force required for a conviction to constitute a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is the same as the required for a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, §924(e)(2)(B)(i)-violent force- and that Castleman could have been convicted for causing slight injury by nonviolent conduct.
In a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned the lower courts, holding that Castleman’s conviction of misdemeanor domestic assault qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9). According to the Court, §922(g)(9)’s “physical force” requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction- namely, “offensive touching.” Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, explained, “Such acts of violence may be relatively minor, and could include hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, hair pulling, or a squeeze of the arm that causes a bruise.” She went on to say, “an act of this nature is easy to describe as ‘domestic violence’ when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control.” Once the court determined that “physical force” was at least offensive touching, the Court then looked to Castleman’s conviction of ‘intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury’ to the mother of his child. Because the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, his conviction qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” that fell within the scope of §922(g)(9).
So, what are the implications of U.S. v. Castleman going forward? Now that the scope of §922(g)(9) has been clarified, federal prosecutors seem to have more legal authority to prosecute prior convicts based on state law convictions. More specifically, if the defendant has been previously convicted for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, where the criminal act was any form of offensive touching, the person may be convicted for illegal gun possession under §922(g)(9) if he or she is subsequently caught with a firearm.