The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of violation of a protective order.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of violation of a protective order if, in violation of a protective order issued under [specify source of authority, e.g., chapter 85, Texas Family Code], at a hearing that the person attended or that was held after the person received notice or service of the application for a protective order and notice of the hearing, the person knowingly or intentionally communicates in any manner with a family or household member of the protected individual, and the order prohibits any communication with a family or household member.

Definitions

Intentionally Communicates with Another

A person intentionally communicates with another when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in communication with another.

Knowingly Communicates with Another

A person knowingly communicates with another when he is aware that his conduct constitutes communication with another.

Knows that Another Is a Member of the Protected Person’s Family or Household

A person knows that another is a member of the protected person’s family or household when he is aware that the person is a member of the protected person’s family or household.

Family

A “family” includes individuals related by consanguinity or affinity, former spouses of each other, individuals who are the parents of the same child, and foster child and parent.

Related by Consanguinity

Two individuals are “related to each other by consanguinity” if one is a descendant of [or shares a common ancestor with] the other.

Related by Affinity

Two individuals are “related to each other by affinity” if one is married to the other or the person’s spouse is related by consanguinity to the other individual. [A marriage’s end by divorce or a spouse’s death ends relationships by affinity that the marriage created unless a child of that marriage is living, in which case the marriage is considered to continue as long as a child of that marriage lives.]

Household

A “household” means a unit composed of persons living together in the same dwelling, without regard to whether they are related to each other.

[Include the following if raised by the evidence.]

Member of a Household

A “member of a household” or “household member” includes a person who previously lived in a household.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, seven elements. The elements are that—

1. a protective order was issued by [name of issuing judge] of the [name and number of court] of [county] County, Texas on [date] under authority of [specify source of authority, e.g., chapter 85, Texas Family Code,] and named [protected person’s name] as a protected individual;
2. the order was issued after a hearing—
   1. that the defendant attended; [and/or]
   2. that was held after the defendant received notice of or received service of the application for a protective order and notice of the hearing;
3. the order prohibited any communication between the defendant and a member of the family or household of [protected person’s name];
4. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date], intentionally or knowingly communicated with [name] [insert specific manner alleged, e.g., by calling and texting name];
5. [name] was a member of [protected person’s name]’s family or household;
6. the defendant knew that [name] was a member of [protected person’s name]’s family or household; and
7. the defendant’s communication was in violation of the protective order.

You must all agree on elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 listed above. You do not have to agree whether element 2 is proven by 2.a or 2.b. With regard to element 4, you do not have to all agree whether the communication was done intentionally or whether it was done knowingly.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

[Select one of the following.]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the seven elements listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[or]

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the seven elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense of communication through an attorney or court-appointed person.

Communication through an Attorney or Court-Appointed Person

It is a defense to the offense of violation of a protective order that the communication was through the protected person’s or the family or household member’s attorney or a person appointed by the court.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove the communication was through the attorney or court-appointed person. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the communication was not through such a person.

Application of Law to Facts

To decide the issue, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the communication in element 4 above was not made through [[name]’s attorney/a person appointed by the court].

You must all agree that the state has proved this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you find that the state has failed to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of violation of a protective order by communicating with a protected person’s family or household member and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the communication was not made through [that person’s attorney/a person appointed by the court], you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]