Expertise-com - Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in Boston - 2026 - Badge

Expertise-com - Best DUI Lawyers in Boston - 2026 - Badge

2024 - Top 3 - Criminal Defense Lawyers in Boston - Badge

A 209A Restraining Order and Criminal Charges From the Same Incident in Massachusetts

The police arrest a person after a 911 call reporting a fight with a spouse. At arraignment the next morning, the judge orders the person, as a condition of release, to stay away from the family home and to have no contact with the spouse. The spouse then files a complaint for a 209A abuse prevention order in the same courthouse. The same afternoon, a judge issues a temporary restraining order without the person present.

The person faces two cases from one incident. The Commonwealth prosecutes the criminal case. The spouse brings the restraining order case. Each case has its own judge, its own hearing dates, its own standard of proof, and its own court order. This page explains how the 209A restraining order case and the criminal case differ, how the prosecutor and the defense use evidence from one case in the other case, and what happens to each case when the other case ends.

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. He defends people charged with domestic violence offenses in the district courts and the Boston Municipal Court. He also represents defendants and plaintiffs at 209A restraining order hearings.

Who Brings Each Case

The Commonwealth brings the criminal case. After an arrest, the police apply for a criminal complaint. A clerk-magistrate issues the complaint on a finding of probable cause. The district attorney’s office then prosecutes the case against the defendant.

The alleged victim brings the 209A restraining order case. A family or household member, or a person in a substantive dating relationship with the defendant, files a complaint for an abuse prevention order under G.L. c. 209A. In the restraining order case, the alleged victim is called the plaintiff. The person accused is the defendant in both cases. A plaintiff can obtain a 209A restraining order when no criminal charge exists. The police can also charge a person when no one has asked for a restraining order.

The district attorney’s office decides whether the Commonwealth continues to prosecute the criminal case. A prosecutor may end the charges by filing a nolle prosequi, a written notice that the Commonwealth will not go forward, under Mass. R. Crim. P. 16. Commonwealth v. Pellegrini, 414 Mass. 402, 405 (1993).

The alleged victim has the right to confer with the prosecutor before a nolle prosequi. G.L. c. 258B, § 3(g) provides that the right to confer does not include the authority to direct the prosecution. The plaintiff, by contrast, may ask a judge in the 209A restraining order case to vacate the order at any time. G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

The Courts and the Hearing Dates in Each Case

The judge in the 209A restraining order case ordinarily holds a full hearing weeks or months before the criminal trial. A plaintiff files the restraining order complaint in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, the Probate and Family Court, or the Superior Court for the area where the plaintiff lives. G.L. c. 209A, § 2.

The judge may issue a temporary order the same day without notice to the defendant if the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. G.L. c. 209A, § 4. The court must then give the defendant an opportunity to be heard within ten court business days. Id. Lawyers and judges call the second hearing the hearing after notice, or the ten-day hearing.

The criminal case proceeds more slowly than the 209A restraining order case. After the arraignment, the court schedules a pretrial conference, motion hearings, and a trial date, often over several months. As a result, the hearing after notice in the restraining order case often takes place before the Commonwealth has given the defense its discovery in the criminal case.

The judge in the 209A restraining order case ordinarily holds the hearing as scheduled while the criminal case is pending. The Trial Court’s guidelines for abuse prevention proceedings tell judges that a pending criminal case is not a basis to continue the restraining order hearing. Trial Court, Guidelines for Judicial Practice, Abuse Prevention Proceedings § 8:09 commentary (rev. Oct. 2025).

The Standard of Proof and the Decision Maker in Each Case

In the criminal case, the Commonwealth must prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In the District Court and the Boston Municipal Court, a jury of six decides whether the Commonwealth proved each element. G.L. c. 218, § 26A. The defendant may waive a jury in writing and ask a judge to decide guilt instead. Id.

In the 209A restraining order case, the plaintiff must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597 (1995). A judge, sitting without a jury, decides whether the plaintiff proved that abuse more likely than not occurred. Id. at 595.

Abuse under G.L. c. 209A, § 1 falls into four categories. The categories are causing or attempting to cause physical harm, placing a person in fear of imminent serious physical harm, causing a person to engage in sexual relations involuntarily by force, threat, or duress, and coercive control. The Legislature added coercive control to the definition in 2024. St. 2024, c. 118, § 4.

The two cases also share definitions. The courts define the terms used in 209A restraining order cases with the elements of the related crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court wrote in Commonwealth v. Gordon, 407 Mass. 340, 349 (1990), that placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm closely approximates the common law crime of assault.

The court reads the definition of placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm together with the assault cases. The Appeals Court held in M.G. v. G.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 142-143 (2018), that force is an element of rape under G.L. c. 265, § 22. The Appeals Court also held that the judge in the restraining order case looks to the rape cases in deciding whether the plaintiff proved force under the sexual relations definition.

The same factual questions therefore arise in both courtrooms when a defendant faces a 209A restraining order and a charge of assault or rape from the same night. In the restraining order case, the judge decides the factual questions by a preponderance of the evidence. In the criminal case, the jury decides the same questions beyond a reasonable doubt. The firm’s page on consent in Massachusetts rape and sexual assault cases explains the elements of force, incapacity, and consent that apply in both cases.

A judge can issue a 209A restraining order on evidence that would not convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury can therefore find a defendant not guilty of the criminal charge while a restraining order based on the same allegation remains in force.

The hearing on a 209A restraining order is less formal than a criminal trial. The judge may consider evidence that would be excluded at a criminal trial under the rules of evidence, as long as the hearing is fair. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 597-598. The defendant has the right to testify, to present evidence, and to cross-examine the plaintiff. Id. at 597. C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648, 658 (2004). The judge may limit cross-examination to prevent harassment, intimidation, confusion, or delay. Id.

A criminal defendant who faces possible imprisonment and cannot afford a lawyer has the right to a lawyer appointed by the court. Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:10. The court appoints no lawyer for either party in the 209A restraining order case. Guideline 8:09 commentary.

A defendant who wants a lawyer at the restraining order hearing must hire a lawyer for the restraining order case. A lawyer appointed in the criminal case may advise the defendant at the restraining order hearing about the privilege against self-incrimination. The appointed lawyer must file an appearance in the restraining order case to question witnesses. Id.

The Stay Away No Contact Order and the 209A Restraining Order

A defendant with both cases is often subject to two court orders at the same time. At arraignment, the judge in the criminal case may order the defendant, as a condition of release, to stay away from and have no contact with the alleged victim. G.L. c. 276, §§ 42A, 58. The judge in the 209A restraining order case may order the defendant to stop abusing the plaintiff, to have no contact with the plaintiff, to stay away from the plaintiff’s home, and to leave a home the two share. G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

The two orders have separate terms and separate expiration dates. Only the judge in the criminal case can change the stay away no contact order, which is a condition of release. The defendant or the Commonwealth asks the criminal judge to change the condition by filing a motion to modify the conditions of release. Only a judge in the 209A restraining order case can change the restraining order, on a motion by either party. G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

A plaintiff may ask the judge in the 209A restraining order case to vacate the order. The stay away no contact order in the criminal case remains in force until the judge in the criminal case changes the order. The firm’s page on no contact orders as conditions of release explains how a defendant asks the criminal court to modify the stay away no contact order.

Testimony and Evidence From the 209A Restraining Order Case in the Criminal Case

The court records the hearing in the 209A restraining order case. Guideline 5:00A. The prosecutor and the defense can each order a copy of the recording from the court and use the recording in the criminal case.

The plaintiff’s sworn affidavit can become substantive evidence at the criminal trial. A plaintiff signs the affidavit for a 209A restraining order under the penalty of perjury. A plaintiff who testifies at the criminal trial may give an account that contradicts the affidavit. The Commonwealth may then offer the affidavit as evidence of what happened, as long as a judge issued a restraining order based on the affidavit and the defense can cross-examine the plaintiff about the affidavit. Commonwealth v. Belmer, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 62, 65 (2010). Mass. G. Evid. § 801(d)(1)(A).

A jury may therefore consider the account in the restraining order affidavit even when the alleged victim recants at trial. The defense may also use the plaintiff’s affidavit and the plaintiff’s recorded testimony at the restraining order hearing to cross-examine the plaintiff when the plaintiff’s account changes. Mass. G. Evid. § 613.

A judge’s decision to issue a 209A restraining order does not prove the criminal charge. In Commonwealth v. Foreman, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 510 (2001), the trial judge admitted the alleged victim’s 209A restraining order complaint, affidavit, and order describing the same incident as the assault and battery charge.

The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s assault and battery conviction. The Appeals Court held that the jury would likely conclude that a judge had already decided which witness was telling the truth. The jury also never learned that the judge issued the 209A restraining order under the civil standard of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 515-516, 518.

The Commonwealth may introduce the 209A restraining order in a prosecution for violating the order, because the order is part of what the Commonwealth must prove.

A defendant who testifies at the hearing on a 209A restraining order gives the prosecutor a sworn account of the incident. A prosecutor may obtain the recording and seek to use the defendant’s answers against the defendant in the criminal case.

The defendant may decline to testify at the hearing on the 209A restraining order by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 596. The judge may then draw an inference against the defendant from the defendant’s silence. Id. The inference alone cannot satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Id. The firm’s page on testifying at a 209A restraining order hearing while the criminal case is pending explains how counsel weighs whether the defendant should testify.

What Happens to the 209A Restraining Order When the Criminal Case Ends

The 209A restraining order stays in force after the criminal case ends in a dismissal, a nolle prosequi, or a not guilty verdict. The order remains in effect until the order expires or a judge in the restraining order case modifies or vacates the order. G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

A not guilty verdict does not require the judge in the 209A restraining order case to end the order. The Appeals Court rejected a defendant’s argument that his acquittal required the judge to terminate a 209A restraining order, because the burden of proof in a criminal trial is far more stringent than the burden at an extension hearing. L.D. v. C.H., 93 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2018) (Rule 1:28 decision).

The 209A restraining order also remains subject to extension after a not guilty verdict. At the extension hearing, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an extension is necessary to protect the plaintiff. Iamele v. Asselin, 444 Mass. 734, 739 (2005). The judge considers the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether to extend the order. Id. at 740. The defendant may not use the extension hearing to challenge the evidence on which the judge issued the original order. Id.

A defendant who asks a judge to end a permanent 209A restraining order must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a significant change in circumstances has made the order no longer equitable. MacDonald v. Caruso, 467 Mass. 382, 382-383 (2014). The passage of time and the defendant’s compliance with the order do not establish a significant change by themselves. Id. at 388-389. The firm’s page on terminating or modifying a 209A restraining order explains the preponderance standard and the clear and convincing standard.

What Happens to the Criminal Case When the 209A Restraining Order Ends

The criminal case continues after the 209A restraining order expires or a judge vacates the order. The district attorney’s office decides whether the Commonwealth continues to prosecute the charge.

A plaintiff who asks to vacate the 209A restraining order often also tells the prosecutor that the plaintiff wants the criminal case dismissed. The prosecutor may still go forward with other evidence, such as a 911 recording, body camera video, and statements the alleged victim made to the police at the scene. The firm’s page on when the alleged victim will not testify in a domestic violence case explains how the Commonwealth proceeds without the alleged victim’s testimony.

The stay away no contact order in the criminal case also remains in force until the judge in the criminal case changes the order.

Violating the 209A Restraining Order or the Stay Away No Contact Order

Contact that violates a 209A restraining order is a separate crime under G.L. c. 209A, § 7. A person convicted of violating a 209A restraining order faces a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment in a house of correction for up to two and one-half years, or both. Id.

The judge must also order the defendant to complete a certified intimate partner abuse education program when the violation case ends in a conviction or a continuance without a finding. Id. The judge may excuse the defendant from the program only on written findings of good cause. The intimate partner abuse education program may also find the defendant unsuitable for intervention. Id.

A plaintiff who invites contact does not suspend or change the 209A restraining order. The Commonwealth can still prosecute a defendant who answers a call or accepts a visit that the plaintiff begins. Commonwealth v. Consoli, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 734, 738-739 n.8 (2003).

Only a judge can change the restraining order. G.L. c. 209A, § 3. The firm’s page on violation of a 209A restraining order explains the elements the Commonwealth must prove and the defenses to the charge.

A defendant who violates the stay away no contact order can be detained in the criminal case. After a hearing, the judge may revoke the defendant’s release under G.L. c. 276, § 58B.

The judge must find probable cause that the defendant committed a new crime while on release, or clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated another condition of release. The judge must also find that no condition of release will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community, or that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition of release.

The judge may then hold the defendant for up to ninety days, not counting periods of delay excluded under Mass. R. Crim. P. 36. G.L. c. 276, § 58B. For the same contact, a defendant who is also subject to a 209A restraining order can face a new charge of violating the restraining order and the revocation of release in the first criminal case.

Records and Firearms Consequences of Each Case

A criminal charge appears on the defendant’s criminal record. The Department of Criminal Justice Information Services maintains criminal offender record information, known as CORI, for criminal cases that are not dismissed before arraignment. G.L. c. 6, § 167.

A 209A restraining order is a civil order and is not part of the defendant’s CORI. The Commissioner of Probation records every 209A restraining order in the statewide domestic violence record keeping system. St. 1992, c. 188, § 7. Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153, 155 & n.3 (1997). Judges and police can search the system. A firearms licensing authority can also search the system. G.L. c. 140, § 121F(e)(ii). The public has no general access to the system. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. at 159 n.6.

The entry stays in the system after the 209A restraining order expires or a judge vacates the order. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. at 156-158.

A judge may expunge the entry only on clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff obtained the order through fraud on the court. Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 737 (2006). The firm’s page on expunging a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order from the registry explains the fraud on the court standard.

A judge who issues a temporary 209A restraining order without notice to the defendant must order the defendant to surrender any license to carry, firearms identification card, firearms, and ammunition. G.L. c. 209A, § 3B.

At the hearing after notice, the judge continues the surrender order if the judge finds that returning the license or the firearms would present a likelihood of abuse to the plaintiff. G.L. c. 209A, § 3C. The defendant cannot hold a Massachusetts license to carry or firearms identification card while a 209A restraining order is in effect. G.L. c. 140, § 121F(j)(iii).

Federal law also prohibits firearm possession by a person subject to some 209A restraining orders. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal prohibition applies to a 209A restraining order that a judge issued after a hearing the defendant had notice of and could attend.

The order must protect the defendant’s intimate partner, meaning a spouse, former spouse, co-parent, or present or former cohabitant, or a child of that partner or of the defendant. The order must also prohibit the use of physical force against the protected person or include a finding that the defendant is a credible threat to the protected person’s physical safety.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), federal law separately prohibits firearm possession by a person convicted in the criminal case of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The firm’s page on losing a gun license after a Massachusetts domestic arrest explains the licensing consequences.

Preparing for the 209A Restraining Order Hearing and the Criminal Case Together

Attorney Serpa represents defendants in the 209A restraining order case and the criminal case at the same time.

Before the hearing after notice, he reviews the plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit, the police report, messages, and any other evidence that either side may offer at the restraining order hearing or at the criminal trial. He then advises the defendant whether to testify at the restraining order hearing. He prepares the cross-examination of the plaintiff with both cases in mind.

A person who has a hearing date on a 209A restraining order and a criminal charge from the same incident should speak with a lawyer before the hearing after notice. Request a consultation before the hearing date.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the criminal charges are dismissed, does the 209A restraining order end?

The 209A restraining order stays in force after a dismissal, a nolle prosequi, or a not guilty verdict in the criminal case. The order remains in effect until the order expires or a judge in the restraining order case vacates or modifies the order. The defendant must obey every term of the restraining order until a judge changes the order. G.L. c. 209A, § 3.

If the plaintiff drops the 209A restraining order, are the criminal charges dropped too?

The criminal charges remain pending after the 209A restraining order ends. The district attorney’s office decides whether the Commonwealth continues to prosecute the charges. The stay away no contact order in the criminal case also remains in force until the judge in the criminal case changes the order.

Is a no contact order the same as a 209A restraining order?

A stay away no contact order is a condition of release in the criminal case. The judge in the criminal case imposes the condition under G.L. c. 276, § 58. A 209A restraining order is a civil order that the alleged victim applies for under G.L. c. 209A. A defendant can be subject to both orders at the same time. Each order has its own terms and its own expiration date.

Do I have to testify at the 209A restraining order hearing if I have a criminal case?

A defendant may decline to testify at the hearing on a 209A restraining order by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. The judge may draw an inference against the defendant from the defendant’s silence, but the judge cannot issue the order on the inference alone. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 596 (1995). The court records the hearing. A prosecutor may seek to use anything the defendant says at the restraining order hearing in the criminal case.

Can the plaintiff’s 209A restraining order affidavit be used in the criminal case?

The plaintiff’s affidavit in the 209A restraining order case can be used at the criminal trial. The defense may use the affidavit to cross-examine the plaintiff when the plaintiff’s account changes. A plaintiff who testifies at trial may contradict the affidavit. The Commonwealth may then offer the affidavit as evidence of what happened, if a judge issued a restraining order based on the affidavit. Commonwealth v. Belmer, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 62, 65 (2010).

Does a 209A restraining order appear on my CORI?

A 209A restraining order is a civil order and is not part of a person’s CORI. The Commissioner of Probation records the order in the statewide domestic violence record keeping system, which judges, police, and firearms licensing authorities can search. A criminal charge for violating the order appears on the person’s CORI.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

Client Reviews

He's one of the best people I've met. I'm really appreciative of all the help I received. If you have a serious case, he'll work hard to make sure you have the best outcome. I highly recommend him. You will not be disappointed.

A.J

Mr. Serpa was very helpful with my family member ‘s case. He was able to get it dismissed quickly and easily. He is very professional and very good at what he does. I’m so glad he hired him. You will be glad too if you hire him.

Z.M.

Serpa law office was my attorney of choice for 2 seperate cases I had last year. With both situations, Joseph not only treated me great, delivered the results I was hoping for, and was extremely professional and genuine. I would definitely recommend this law office to anyone in need of legal help.

P.C.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review

Greater Boston Criminal Law Alerts

Proving Who Sent Anonymous Emails in a Massachusetts Stalking Case: Commonwealth v. Hayes

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center October 16, 2026 On September 24, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the convictions of a man who pursued a woman he met in high school for about fifteen years, violated the harassment prevention order she obtained against him, and threatened her family in emails sent…

When Police May Frisk a Person for a Gun in Massachusetts: Commonwealth v. Vihaan V.

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center October 16, 2026 On September 30, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ordered the dismissal of gun charges against a juvenile whom Boston police had frisked after a 911 call reporting “three guys with guns” in a Dorchester backyard. The police ordered the juvenile out of a…

Can a Vacated Restraining Order or Harassment Prevention Order Be Expunged From Your Massachusetts Record?

The SJC held in Piper P. v. Barron B. that a judge can expunge a vacated harassment prevention order from the statewide registry only for fraud on the court.