Continuances. Some judges improperly refuse to conduct hearings on protective order petitions because a relatedcriminal proceeding against the abusive party is pending. The existence of a pending criminal case does not constitute “good grounds” for a continuance.1 A petitioner’s constitutional right to a civil remedy prevails when weighed against a criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.2
Fifth Amendment. In a civil case, the court may draw an adverse inference against a party who asserts his Fifth Amendment privileges.3
Double Jeopardy. Double jeopardy does not bar criminal prosecution for the same act for which a civil protective order is issued. Nor does it bar criminal prosecution where a civil court has dismissed a petition for a protective order following an evidentiary hearing on the same facts and evidence.4 Double jeopardy in the context of a contempt case is discussed elsewhere.5
- 1Malmay v. Sentry Ins. Co., 550 So. 2d 366, 369 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1989).
- 2Id.; Green v. Champion Ins. Co., 577 So. 2d 249, 262 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991); Barbee v. Pigott, 398 So. 2d 137, 138 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1981); Bank of Com. & Tr. Co. v. Prejean, 262 So. 2d 798, 799 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1972).
- 3McCann v. McCann, 09-1341 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10), 33 So. 3d 389, 395 (applying adverse inference in Domestic Abuse Assistance Act case); see also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318–19 (1976).
- 4State v. Carter, 2011-2401, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/3/12), 92 So. 3d 416, 417.
- 5For further discussion, see Section 4.7.1.