North Carolina Criminal Law Updates
What starts as a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing can quickly evolve into 
criminal charges. The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently addressed this reality in Simpson v. Silver, filing an opinion that clarifies how courts evaluate evidence in these cases. The decision, released November 5, 2024, provides guidance on what testimony courts will consider and what evidence they require.
A DVPO hearing might seem like a simple court appearance, but the testimony given during these civil proceedings can impact criminal cases that follow. The words spoken, evidence presented, and objections raised – or not raised – shape both immediate outcomes and future proceedings. From Danny Glover Jr.’s office in the Outer Banks to courthouses across North Carolina, attorneys watch these decisions closely because they explain the NC laws and serve as an example for future cases.
What is a Domestic Violence Protection Order?
The Simpson decision reinforces several fundamental principles about evidence in DVPO cases while answering questions about what testimony courts will accept. Whether defending against a DVPO, facing criminal charges, or dealing with both, understanding how courts handle these matters can help you make informed decisions about your case.
This analysis breaks down the Court of Appeals’ decision and explains what it means for DVPO cases in North Carolina. You’ll learn what counts as evidence, how courts evaluate testimony about emotional distress, and why preserving legal arguments through proper objections matters for appeals. Most importantly, we’ll review how the essential elements can affect both civil and criminal proceedings in domestic violence cases.
The Recent North Carolina Court of Appeals DVPO Decision
The Simpson v. Silver case started like many DVPO matters – with an ex parte order. On June 21, 2023, the plaintiff filed for protection, and the court granted a temporary order that same day. After a full hearing on June 29, 2023, the court issued a one-year DVPO. The defendant appealed, challenging how the district court judge handled evidence during the hearing.
Two main issues shaped this appeal. First, the defendant argued the trial court should not have allowed testimony about the plaintiff’s eating disorder and panic attacks. Second, he challenged the court’s decision to exclude messages from the plaintiff’s son. The Court of Appeals’ response to these issues teaches valuable lessons about handling evidence in DVPO cases.
Felony Assault by Strangulation: What You Need to Know
The defendant’s primary argument focused on causation – specifically, that no evidence proved his actions caused the plaintiff’s health conditions. He claimed the plaintiff wasn’t qualified to testify about medical issues since she wasn’t a medical expert. But this argument hit a procedural wall: the defendant never objected to this testimony during the hearing. The Court of Appeals dismissed this argument because the defendant failed to preserve it for appeal.
The Court emphasized an often-overlooked aspect of DVPO cases – the standard of review. 
When examining DVPO decisions, appeals courts look for “competent evidence” supporting the trial court’s findings. This means evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” The plaintiff’s testimony met this standard. She described threats, harassment, and the impact on her health, including panic attacks, eating problems, and intense anxiety. The trial court found this testimony credible and sufficient.
The defendant’s attempt to introduce messages from the plaintiff’s son faced a similar procedural hurdle. When the trial court excluded this evidence, the defendant needed to make an “offer of proof” – essentially, telling the court what the messages would show. Without this offer of proof, the Court of Appeals couldn’t review whether excluding the messages was wrong.
These procedural missteps proved fatal to the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DVPO, finding the trial court had competent evidence to conclude the defendant committed domestic violence.
How Civil DVPO Evidence Can Impact Criminal Cases
Admissible evidence and testimony during a DVPO hearing ordinarily becomes part of a court record. The Simpson case shows how testimony about emotional distress, physical symptoms, and daily impacts creates evidence that courts accept and rely on. The plaintiff testified about panic attacks, eating problems, and anxiety without objection – and that testimony became permanent evidence supporting the protective order.
Felony Assault & Weapons Charges: Inflicting Serious Bodily Injury
DVPO hearings move quickly. The Simpson defendant learned this when he tried to challenge the plaintiff’s testimony about health conditions on appeal. The Court of Appeals noted a basic rule: you must object to evidence when it comes in, not later. This rule applies in both civil and criminal courts. Without timely objections, evidence that might have been kept out becomes part of the record.
Civil protective order hearings use different evidence rules than criminal trials. Civil courts often accept testimony about how events affected someone’s life, health, and emotional state. The Simpson court found the plaintiff’s testimony about feeling “terrified” and “scared” met the standard for competent evidence.
Court records from DVPO hearings become permanent evidence. These transcripts follow the case into criminal court if a violation occurs. When someone violates a protective order in North Carolina, they may face a Class A1 Misdemeanor charge – one of the most serious misdemeanor classifications.
DVPO hearings differ from criminal trials in a fundamental way: the plaintiff can call the defendant to testify. While defendants can decline to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this choice carries consequences. Unlike in criminal court, where no negative inference comes from remaining silent, civil courts can view this silence as evidence against the defendant.
This creates a difficult choice. Testimony given during a DVPO hearing remains available for review if criminal charges arise later. Yet declining to testify can hurt the defendant’s position in the civil case. The Simpson case shows why early decisions about testimony and evidence matter for both immediate and future proceedings.
The Simpson case demonstrates how courts treat testimony about threats, contact attempts, and their effects.
Civil DVPO findings differ from criminal evidence. Civil courts use a “preponderance of evidence” standard – meaning more likely than not – while criminal courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt. While civil findings cannot serve as direct evidence in criminal court, they matter in other ways.
Prosecutors review DVPO proceedings when evaluating criminal cases. The evidence presented, witness testimony given, and findings made in civil court can suggest how criminal charges might develop. For example, the Simpson court examined evidence of multiple contact attempts through different phone numbers. This pattern of evidence, while not directly transferable to criminal court, helps prosecutors understand the full scope of contact between parties.
Should You Waive Probable Cause?
DVPO hearings often reveal evidence that shapes criminal investigations and plea negotiations. Testimony about communication methods, timing of contacts, and patterns of behavior creates a framework for criminal cases. In Simpson, the detailed timeline of threats and contacts presented in civil court outlined a pattern. Prosecutors consider these patterns when deciding whether to offer plea arrangements, conditional discharges, or other non-trial dispositions. Strong evidence of repeated violations or concerning behavior in DVPO proceedings might lead prosecutors to limit or deny options for resolving criminal charges outside of trial.
Making Informed Decisions About Domestic Violence Testimony
Court records endure. The Simpson decision reinforces this reality through its examination of testimony, evidence, and procedural requirements. Civil protective order hearings create permanent records that can affect both immediate outcomes and future proceedings. What might seem like a straightforward hearing could lead to complex legal implications.
What is Interfering with Emergency Communications?
The rules about preserving objections and presenting evidence matter. Simpson shows how failing to follow these rules limits options later. Courts accept testimony about emotional impact, health effects, and daily disruptions when properly presented. This evidence builds the foundation for both civil orders and potential criminal proceedings.
Time matters in domestic violence cases. The Simpson court noted how quickly these cases move from filing to hearing – just eight days in that case. Courts implement these timing requirements to address safety concerns, but rapid proceedings mean quick decisions about evidence and testimony.
Testimony in civil protective order hearings requires thought and preparation. From the possible emotional impact to repeated contact attempts, courts evaluate the evidence to determine whether orders should stay in place. The Simpson decision guides how trial courts view this evidence and what they require for proof.
Danny Glover Jr.’s office handles criminal domestic violence matters throughout North Carolina’s Outer Banks region. The office stays current with court decisions like Simpson to provide informed guidance about these intersecting legal issues. For questions about domestic violence criminal charges, contact Attorney Danny Glover Jr at 252-299-5300 or Danny@DannyGloverLawFirm.com.