Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abuse Prevention Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Questions Use of Counsel Representations in Abuse‑Prevention Order Hearings
Summary
The court examined whether trial judges may rely on counsel proffers instead of live testimony when extending abuse‑prevention orders under Chapter 209, focusing on Latoya and Callahan precedents and whether remand or reassignment is required.
The panel turned to an impounded appeal concerning an abuse‑prevention order (APO). Matthew Lawrence argued the trial judge erred by terminating an APO without a hearing that included witness testimony; he said counsel’s offers of proof and decades‑long history in the record required the appellate court to remand for findings or direct reassignment to another judge.
Justice Rubin and the panel questioned how appellate review should treat hearings conducted primarily on counsel’s representations. As counsel said, “Restraint order hearings in a business prevention order… these appeals court,” the practice creates difficulties for review when there is no sworn testimony in the record.
Opposing counsel Noor Kasmi maintained the trial court applied the correct standard and that, where the plaintiff offered no evidence to show continued need, the judge need not spell out findings; the panel explored whether Latoya’s guidance requires explicit findings on continued need.
The court discussed potential remedies: reversal, remand for findings, or reassignment to another judge. The case was submitted for decision.
