## Facts

- Lashance Howard sought a civil protection order (CPO) against her former boyfriend, Alassane Ba.
- Ba signed a “Consent CPO Without Admissions” effective for 12 months.
- The CPO prohibited Ba from assaulting, threatening, harassing, or abusing Howard; required him to stay at least 100 feet away from her, her home, and her workplace; and barred any contact.
- The CPO expressly warned that noncompliance was punishable as a criminal offense with possible jail time and fines.
- After entry of the CPO, Ba and Howard reconciled and lived together for several months.
- Howard testified the relationship ended permanently in March 2000 and Ba knew it was over.
- On May 13, 2000, Howard saw Ba parked outside her house at night and called police; after officers initially left, Ba approached to within about six feet of her, and police returned and arrested him.
- After a bench trial, Ba was convicted of willfully violating the CPO based on the stay-away restriction.
- Ba appealed, arguing that Howard’s consent and the reconciliation effectively nullified or modified the CPO, or at least defeated the “willful” element.

## Issues

1. Whether, under these circumstances, the complainant’s consent and the parties’ reconciliation could serve as a defense to a criminal charge of violating a CPO.
2. Whether the complainant’s consent and conduct could negate the statutory requirement that the violation be willful.
3. Whether equitable doctrines (such as unclean hands) could bar criminal enforcement of a CPO when the protected party invited or welcomed contact contrary to the order.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that reconciliation and the complainant’s consent did not modify or vacate the CPO; only the issuing court could alter it.
- The court declined to recognize a consent-based defense on these facts.
- The court concluded the evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Ba willfully violated the CPO by coming within the prohibited distance after the relationship had ended and with notice of the order’s terms.
- The court rejected an equitable “unclean hands” theory as a bar to criminal enforcement focused on the respondent’s compliance with the court order.

## Legal Principles

- A civil protection order must be obeyed as written unless and until it is modified or vacated by the issuing court.
- Private reconciliation or the protected party’s consent does not, by itself, nullify or alter a court-issued protective order.
- For criminal liability, the government must prove a willful violation; prior notice of the order’s clear terms and intentional conduct within the prohibited zone can satisfy willfulness.
- Equitable defenses based on the complainant’s conduct do not excuse a defendant’s noncompliance with a protective order in a criminal prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Ba’s conviction because the CPO remained enforceable until judicially changed, the complainant’s consent and reconciliation did not excuse noncompliance, and the evidence showed Ba knowingly and intentionally breached the stay-away requirement.


Ba v. United States, 809 A.2d 1178 (D.C. 2002)