## Facts

- Fernando A. was arrested on family-violence charges after allegedly assaulting his wife during pending divorce proceedings.
- Police released him the same day on nonfinancial conditions restricting entry to the family home and contact with his wife.
- At arraignment, the trial court issued a criminal protective order (CPO) continuing similar restrictions as a condition of release.
- The court relied on the family violence intervention unit report and counsel’s oral representations rather than live testimony.
- After arraignment, the defendant requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the need to continue the CPO; the trial court denied the request and continued the order without a trial-type hearing.
- The defendant obtained review through a public interest appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutes governing family-violence protective orders require a full, trial-type evidentiary hearing before a CPO may be issued at arraignment.
2. Whether, if a CPO may issue at arraignment without live testimony, the court must provide a prompt subsequent evidentiary hearing upon a timely request to test the order’s continued necessity, and what standards apply.

## Decision

- The court held that a trial court may issue a CPO at arraignment after considering counsel’s oral argument and the family violence intervention unit report, without conducting a full evidentiary hearing.
- The court held that if the defendant requests an evidentiary hearing at the initial proceeding, the trial court must hold a subsequent hearing within a reasonable time.
- At the subsequent hearing, the state must prove the continued necessity of the CPO by a fair preponderance of the evidence, which may include reliable hearsay.
- Because the defendant was denied the required subsequent evidentiary hearing, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these requirements.

## Legal Principles

- In family-violence cases, initial issuance of a criminal protective order at arraignment may rest on the family violence intervention unit report and argument of counsel, without live testimony.
- When a defendant timely requests review at the initial proceeding, due process and the statutory scheme require a meaningful post-issuance evidentiary hearing within a reasonable time.
- The burden at that subsequent hearing is on the state to justify continuing the protective order by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
- The evidentiary showing at the subsequent hearing may include reliable hearsay, reflecting the practical character of pretrial release proceedings.

## Conclusion

A trial court may impose a family-violence criminal protective order at arraignment without a trial-type hearing, but must provide a reasonably prompt later evidentiary hearing when requested at the outset, with the state bearing the burden to prove continued necessity by a preponderance of the evidence using admissible proof that may include reliable hearsay.


State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1, 981 A.2d 427 (Conn. 2009)