VISTA, Calif. — A San Diego County Superior Court judge on Tuesday ordered a full criminal protective order to remain in effect for a man accused of domestic battery and driving under the influence, despite his wife’s testimony that she did not believe the order was necessary. The judge also required the accused to attend two Alcoholics Anonymous meetings per week while the case proceeds.
Criminal Defense Attorney Lisbette J. Baltazar entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the accused. The deputy district attorney argued that, while the prosecution did not oppose the accused’s release on bond, the nature of the case — involving allegations of DUI and domestic violence — warranted requiring two AA meetings per week, along with a full criminal protective order.
The deputy district attorney further explained that, with a blood alcohol content of .287, the accused had “hit, punched, and slapped” his wife multiple times before fleeing the home. He was later stopped by law enforcement.
Attorney Baltazar then called attention to the complaining witness, who disputed the need for a full criminal protective order. She said that when she initially filed a complaint against her husband, she believed he would instead receive a no-negative-contact order.
While a full criminal protective order prohibits the accused from having any contact with the protected person, a no-negative-contact order is less restrictive, allowing the parties to communicate so long as the contact is not hostile, harmful or otherwise in violation of the court’s restrictions.
The complaining witness testified that she did not believe she was in danger and considered a protective order unnecessary because she sympathized with her husband and believed the incident “was a one-time thing.” She said she was not afraid of him and did not believe the behavior would occur again.
Despite the complaining witness disputing the prosecution’s request for a full criminal protective order, the prosecution argued that such an order was appropriate to ensure her safety and prevent future altercations. The prosecution added that it would be willing to revisit the issue at a later court date if appropriate.
Judge Randall White agreed, granting a full criminal protective order despite the complaining witness’s testimony.
Such a result can appear surprising or overly cautious in light of the complaining witness’s statements. However, the legal reasoning behind maintaining protective orders involves multiple considerations.
Criminal protective orders are issued by the court and are not based solely on whether the protected person requests one. Under California Penal Code Section 136.2, courts may issue protective orders in criminal cases when necessary to protect individuals involved in the proceedings. The court is responsible for considering “safety concerns, including the circumstances of the alleged offense and whether contact between the parties could create pressure, influence, or further conflict while the case is ongoing.”
In this case, those legal considerations could have included the alleged role of alcohol, the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the accused had been released on bond. While requiring the accused to attend AA meetings may address issues related to substance use, participation alone does not necessarily eliminate potential safety concerns involving the accused’s wife.
While this may not have been the outcome the complaining witness or the defense had hoped for, decisions such as this demonstrate the court’s responsibility to balance the rights of the accused with concerns about safety, preventing witness intimidation and addressing potential risk.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
