Facing Felony Domestic Violence Charges

A domestic violence charge in Maine occurs when certain crimes, such as assault, criminal threatening and terrorizing, among other crimes, are committed against a family or household member. In most cases, domestic violence charges in Maine are misdemeanors.   Maine domestic violence can be raised to a felony if certain aggravating factors exist.  One example of an aggravating factor which raises the charge to a felony is having a prior domestic violence related conviction.

Unfortunately, this situation happens more often then we would like when a person is charged with a Domestic Violence charge in Maine and I have handled many cases that were, although they involved misdemeanor conduct, charged as Felonies due to the aggravating factor of a prior domestic violence related conviction.  What follows is none example of how I helped one of my many clients out of Felony Domestic Violence Charges.

When my client came to my office, he was facing:

• one count of felony Domestic Violence Assault
•  one count of felony Domestic Violence Terrorizing
•  one count of misdemeanor Criminal Mischief.

In Maine, the police and District Attorneys take all matters of domestic violence very seriously, and they take felony domestic violence matters extremely seriously.  The reason my client was charged with felony domestic violence is because he had a prior conviction for violating a Protective Order.  A protective order is the result of a successful PFA, it is a civil order designed to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse between family of household members.  See matter for more information.

How Maine Defines Domestic Violence Charges

Maine Statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. §207-A details the Domestic Violence Assault law in Maine.  According to Maine Law,

1. A person is guilty of domestic violence assault if:

1. The person violates section 207 (Assault) and the victim is a family or household member as defined in Title 19-A, section 2004, subsection 4.  Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or
2. The person violates paragraph A and at the time of the offense:

(1)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating paragraph A or for violating section 209-A (Domestic Violence Criminal Threatening), 210-B (Domestic Violence Terrorizing), 210-C (Domestic Violence Stalking) or 211-A (Domestic Violence Reckless Conduct) or one or more prior convictions for engaging in conduct substantially similar to that contained in paragraph A or in section 209-A, 210-C, or 211-A in another jurisdiction;

(2)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating Title 19-A, section 4011, subsection 1 (Violating a Protective Order) or one or more prior convictions for engaging in conduct substantially similar to that contained in Title 19-A, section 4011, subsection 1 in another jurisdiction;

(3)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating Title 15, section 1092, subsection 1, paragraph B (Violating Condition of Release) when the condition of release violated is specified in Title 15, section 1026, subsection 3, paragraph A, subparagraph (5) or (8) when the alleged victim in the case for which the defendant was on bail was a family or household member as defined in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.

Violation of this paragraph (3) is a Class C crime.  If convicted of a Class C crime, the maximum penalties would include up to $5,000.00 in fines and up to five (5) years jail time, as well as designation as a felon.

Domestic violence terrorizing is defined by the Maine Statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. §210-B.  Domestic violence terrorizing is defined as

1. A person is guilty of domestic violence terrorizing if:

1. The person violates section 210 (Terrorizing) and the victim is a family or household member as defined in Title 19-A, section 2004, subsection 4.  Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or
2. The person violates paragraph A and at the time of the offense:

(1)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating paragraph A or for violating section 209-A (Domestic Violence Criminal Threatening), 210-B (Domestic Violence Terrorizing), 210-C (Domestic Violence Stalking) or 211-A (Domestic Violence Reckless Conduct) or one or more prior convictions for engaging in conduct substantially similar to that contained in paragraph A or in section 209-A, 210-C, or 211-A in another jurisdiction;

(2)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating Title 19-A, section 4011, subsection 1 (Violating a Protective Order) or one or more prior convictions for engaging in conduct substantially similar to that contained in Title 19-A, section 4011, subsection 1 in another jurisdiction;

(3)    Has one or more prior convictions for violating Title 15, section 1092, subsection 1, paragraph B (Violating Condition of Release) when the condition of release violated is specified in Title 15, section 1026, subsection 3, paragraph A, subparagraph (5) or (8) when the alleged victim in the case for which the defendant was on bail was a family or household member as defined in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.

Violation of this paragraph (3) qualifies as a Class C crime.  If convicted of a Class C crime, the maximum penalties would include up to $5,000.00 in fines and up to five (5) years jail time, as well as designation as a felon.

Facts of the Case

Previously, my client had been having an on-again, off-again relationship with his girlfriend, but they were trying to make it work for the child they had together.  It had all started when an ongoing argument escalated, and the victim called 9-11 claiming that my client had assaulted and terrorized her by yelling and grabbing a cell phone out of her hands.  According to my client, the victim’s version of events was not what had actually happened.  The complaining victim did not have any physical signs of any offensive contact or altercation with her boyfriend.

Weaknesses in the Police Investigation/ State’s Case

In domestic violence assault cases, the State’s evidence is usually in the form of witness statements, especially the victim’s version of events.  Problems can occur, however, when there are questions surrounding the credibility of the State’s complaining victim.

In this case the alleged victim had provided a written statement to the police after they had interviewed her.  Her written statement was inconsistent concerning certain details with what she had told the police.  Details about what prompted the incident, where the incident had occurred, how my client allegedly threatened her, how her property was damaged.  Even more concerning, yet beneficial to the defense was a written statement made by the alleged victim concerning the prior PFA she had placed on my client and how she had fabricated the abuse, just so she could gain custody of their child and be done with him.

Since criminal defendants have a 6^th amendment right to confront their accusers in open court, the State would have had to put the complaining victim on the stand.  Had the victim testified at trial, I had intended to reveal every inconsistency in the victim’s statement and her admission of lying to get a PFA to attack her credibility for the jury to see and hear.

I had proposed to my client that we use a private investigator to interview the victim again.  However, my client felt that the credibility problems with the victim were so significant that the victim would not be truthful even when speaking to the private investigator.

Risks for Defendant/ Weaknesses of Defense Case

In this case, my client had a lot at stake because he was facing felony charges.  My client considered himself to be a law-abiding citizen, and he worked as a professional.  Felony status can be debilitating to a person’s life and work opportunities, and in his case, felony status would have been catastrophic.

What happened at Court

In many instances, especially when facing serious charges, the District Attorney can expect a defendant to roll over and plead guilty so as to avoid a public trial.  In this case, my client did not want to roll over and plead guilty to something he was adamant that he did not do, but he was not willing to risk a public trial.  I can understand the desire not to air one’s dirty laundry for public viewing, but sometimes the best cleanser is a trial.  I advised my client that he should become comfortable with going to trial because the DA was not just going to dismiss this case unless there was a good justifiable reason.  I know that one good reason from the DA’s perspective is that if there is a strong, likelihood of an acquittal, then the State would be more inclined to “dump” the case.

As the case moved through they system, the State’s offers progressed from just pleading guilty as charged, to a drop down from the felonies, to a deferred disposition.  We declined them all and set the case the case for Jury Selection by demanding a trial.  Thankfully my client trusted in my advice and stood his ground.  Taking the case to trial pushes the District Attorney to consider how they will actually prove the case against my client.  In this case, the closer to trial we got, and my emphasis on the lack of credibility of their star witness concerning her written admission of lying to get a PFA, the DA determined that credibility issues were just to much to overcome and agreed to outright dismiss the two felony DV charges and file the remaining misdemeanor criminal mischief charge, which was later dismissed as well.

How the result fit in the big picture

This outcome was excellent for my client.  He still wanted to avoid a trial because he did not want to embarrass his girlfriend.  They were working things out and dedicated to raising their child.  This is understandable.  As a Maine criminal defense attorney, it’s a good idea to keep in mind that our clients go on living their lives after they are done with their criminal matters and our advocacy.  If I had attacked his girlfriend’s credibility and highlighted her dishonesty, that would have been great in achieving an acquittal, but not so great in allowing them to work together in the future to raise their child.  This resolution also met my goal of achieving a dismissal of all charges felony and misdemeanor, as well as preserved my client’s good name.  Both my client and I were very happy about this outcome.