Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Patrick Wright’s conviction for criminal violation of a protective order. The court held that the defendant could not collaterally attack the validity of the protective order in the criminal prosecution, that the order’s validity was not an implicit element the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant’s uncounseled appearance at the protective-order hearing did not provide a basis for relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court violated Wright's constitutional right to present a defense by excluding evidence offered to show that the protective order was invalid.
- Whether due process required the state to prove the validity of the protective order beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of criminal violation of a protective order.
- Whether Wright had a constitutional right to appointed counsel at the hearing at which the protective order was issued, and whether the absence of counsel could be raised as a defense to the later violation charge.
Holdings
- A defendant may not collaterally attack the validity of a protective order in a criminal prosecution for violating it when the order was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The order must be obeyed unless modified, vacated, or reversed through orderly legal proceedings.
- The validity of the underlying protective order is not an implicit element of the offense of criminal violation of a protective order under § 53a-110b. The state need not prove the order's validity beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Wright could not use the alleged denial of counsel at the protective-order hearing as a defense to the later criminal violation charge because the claim was an impermissible collateral attack on the protective order.
Key quotations
“a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed” (426)
“there is no privilege to disobey a court’s order because the alleged contemnor believes that it is invalid.” (426)
“the legislature, in defining the offense of criminal violation of a protective order, did not expressly make the validity of the underlying order an element of that offense.” (431)
“an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.” (434)
Factual background
After Patrick Wright assaulted Judith Malcolm at an apartment where Wright lived with his girlfriend and their children, he was arrested and arraigned on assault and disorderly-conduct charges. As a condition of release, the Superior Court issued a protective order prohibiting Wright from threatening, assaulting, or contacting Malcolm and from entering the apartment, and explained that violation would constitute a separate criminal offense. Wright later entered the apartment while Malcolm was present, was arrested, and was convicted of violating the protective order.
Procedural history
A jury found Patrick Wright guilty of criminal violation of a protective order and not guilty of interfering with a police officer. The trial court rendered judgment on the guilty verdict. Wright appealed, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut accepted the transferred appeal and affirmed.