Bailey v. Murray

Bailey requested a DVRO against Murray because Murray had sexually assaulted her in January 2021, continued to contact her once she ended the relationship, and in February 2023, Murray blocked Bailey’s car in her church’s parking lot until she agreed to go with him. He then took Bailey to his house, tried to sexually assault her again, and kept Bailey from leaving.

At the hearing on the DVRO, Bailey was not represented, and Murray had an attorney.  During Bailey’s direct testimony, the trial court asked her some questions including what led her to file her request for a DVRO.  While Bailey’s DVRO request did not include the January 2021 incident, Bailey testified about it at the hearing. Bailey also said Murray had shown up to her church after the TRO issued. The trial court admitted the evidence about the January 2021 assault.

The trial court told Murray it had received the standard criminal history report, and it showed Murray was the registered owner of a gun. The court gave Murray the DV-800 Form to complete, informing him he had one day to file the form to show he had turned the gun over or he would be in violation of the TRO. Murray turned in an incomplete form that did not show the time and date when he turned his gun over to a licensed gun dealer. When the trial court told him his form was incomplete and gave Murray a chance to correct it, he did not. Instead, Murray claimed he had a Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions about the location of the gun. Murray then tried to say he never owned the gun but would not answer questions.

The trial court granted Bailey’s DVRO and Murray appealed arguing that his due process rights had been violated because 1) the trial court was not neutral when it was asking Bailey questions, 2) Bailey should not have been allowed to testify about the January 2021 incident because it was not in her DVRO request, and 3) he was not allowed to argue against the trial court’s conclusion that he owned a firearm based on the report.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with Murray and affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the DVRO. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court could ask “general, open-ended questions” to get the important facts from Bailey as a self-represented party and to clarify “confusing and incomplete testimony.” Noting that the DVPA does not require survivors to put every incident of abuse in their DVRO petition if they gave the other party notice “of the general allegations,” the Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not make a mistake in letting Bailey testify to the 2021 incident. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court could rely on the criminal record report to find Murray owned a gun and he violated the TRO by not turning it over. The trial court properly gave Murray the DV-800 form and gave Murray and his attorney opportunity to complete and correct the form, but they chose not to and it was Murray’s choice not to challenge the finding he owned a firearm registered to him or he had not properly turned it over.