A client came to our office looking for assistance with an Indirect Criminal Contempt (ICC) charge for violating a Protection from Abuse order (PFA). Attorney McAllister found out that the offer from the District Attorney’s office was for a jail sentence of 3-6 months. Attorney McAllister and the client decided to proceed with a hearing. An ICC hearing is essentially a small trial in front of a judge. The District Attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the PFA by proving 4 elements:
– that the PFA was sufficiently definite, clear and specific to properly notify the defendant about what conduct was prohibited
– that the defendant knew about the PFA
– that the alleged act was volitional
– that the defendant acted with wrongful intent
The PFA plaintiff and our client both testified at the hearing and Attorney McAllister argued that the District Attorney did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. He specifically argued that his client did not act with wrongful intent. The judge agreed with Attorney McAllister’s argument and dismissed the charge against our client.