AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a domestic violence proceeding initiated in February 2008, where an order of protection was entered against the Husband. The Wife filed an affidavit alleging the Husband violated this order. A special commissioner found the Husband in violation and recommended a deferred sentence, which the district court ordered to be reviewed. However, a hearing was not scheduled following this order. Fourteen months later, the district court ordered a de novo trial on the contempt charge, directing the Wife to prosecute under a criminal standard. The Wife objected, arguing the court lost jurisdiction. At the de novo trial, relying on previous testimony, the court found insufficient evidence to convict the Husband of violating the protective order.

Procedural History

• Special commissioner hearing, April 3, 2008: Found Husband violated the order of protection and recommended a deferred sentence.
• District Court, April 4, 2008: Signed a minute order for a hearing that was never scheduled.
• District Court, (date not specified): Ordered a de novo trial on the contempt charge, directing the Wife to prosecute.

Parties' Submissions

• Wife: Argued that the district court lost jurisdiction due to the time elapsed since the initial order and objected to being directed to prosecute the matter.
• Husband: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Wife has standing to appeal the Husband's acquittal of criminal contempt.
• Whether the district court lost jurisdiction to hear the contempt proceeding due to the passage of time.
• Whether the district court erred in requiring the Wife to prosecute the charges against the Husband.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court concluded that the Wife does not have standing to appeal the Husband's acquittal of criminal contempt, as the statutes governing appeals from contempt proceedings allow only the person convicted of criminal contempt or a person aggrieved by a civil contempt proceeding to appeal. The court distinguished between criminal and civil contempt, noting that the Wife's appeal pertained to a criminal contempt proceeding, from which she, as a third party, does not have the right to appeal an acquittal. The court expressed concern over the district court's direction for the Wife to prosecute the case but noted that the same evidence was considered at both the special commissioner hearing and the de novo trial, leading to the Husband's acquittal based on insufficient evidence.