Clark v. United States

At the conclusion of a non-jury trial, appellant was convicted of violating a civil protection order (“CPO”), 1 simple assault, 2 and destruction of property. 3 He challenges his conviction for violating the CPO, arguing that it infringed the Double Jeopardy Clause, 4 and also that the trial court erroneously rejected a defense that the complainant consented to his prohibited contact. Because we conclude that the CPO violation constituted a separate offense from appellant’s other charges and that appellant offered no viable defense to the CPO violation, we affirm.

I

On September 14, 2009, a…