DOJ supports uniform criminalization of post‑sentence no-contact violations; defense office warns of duplication and double‑jeopardy risks

The committee considered House Bill 168, a measure that would make violations of court-ordered no-contact conditions after sentencing a criminal offense. Jenna Malachy of the Delaware Department of Justice said the bill is intended to create uniform treatment for post‑sentence no-contact violations, which DOJ views as inconsistently enforced under current law.

"The bill before you today is intending to criminalize violations of no contact orders after defendants have been sentenced," Malachy told the committee, and she compared the proposed change to existing penalties that apply pre-conviction or as part of bail conditions under 11 Del. C. §21-13.

In public comment, Anthony Capone, director of policy and appellate practice at the Office of Defense Services, urged caution. He said courts already can respond to violations through swift probation action, separate criminal charges for related offenses, and by using criminal contempt under 11 Del. C. §12-71. "With so many layers of protection in place, this bill would add a duplicative overlapping statute that is unnecessary and would lead to confusion, overcharging, and potentially multiple charges," Capone said, warning of double‑jeopardy concerns.

Senator Marie Pinkney asked whether a violation of a no-contact order that is a condition of probation would ordinarily be handled through a violation-of-probation proceeding; DOJ answered that such a VOP is possible but not applied consistently and that in some cases a new criminal charge is filed as well.

Senator Poore, appearing after the DOJ and public comment, stated that the Senate amendment to HB 168 would strike the House amendment related to exclusive jurisdiction and that the house sponsor agrees with that change. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 168 during this session; the bill will be circulated for further consideration.