DV case dismissed without Prejudice

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

What I want to know  if this is going to cause  any problem with immigration , I did not plead guilty or took any classes my gf recanted her statement. I asked my criminal defense attorney who has 20 years of experience in criminal defense about this and he said it is the most common dismissal for DV cases which are dismissed before going to trial.

My main concern is if this is going to be an issue for green card or naturalization in the future. 


Link to comment

Hi Everyone,

This Forum has helped in getting some info for my case, So I would like to contribute by sharing the info I have gathered.

Dismissed with Prejudice VS Without Prejudice.

I am not a lawyer this info is found on the web and has a very detailed explanation.


Even though the name implies that the case is “gone forever,” a dismissal without prejudice essentially means “try again.”

If the state’s evidence is weak at the preliminary hearing and the defendant makes a motion to dismiss, the judge often grants the motion without prejudice to refile. So if your criminal case is dismissed without prejudice, the prosecutor may choose to refile the charges. What that said, the state actually has several options:

  • Change the Charged Offense: Sometimes, the charge does not fit the facts. For example, over-aggressive prosecutors sometimes file domestic violence charges when there was no protected relationship between the defendant and alleged victim. For example, prosecutors nearly always assume that men and women are either married or dating, even if the facts only marginally support such conclusions.
  • More Evidence: The standard of proof is very high in criminal court, and there is a big difference between establishing probable cause for an arrest and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, in our hypothetical drug case, the “field test” procedure and/or results may have been so shaky that the judge isn’t convinced that the substance tested was actually cocaine, so the prosecutor needs a chemist to testify to that effect.
  • Better Law: The law is constantly evolving. Procedures that were only somewhat legal at one point may be entirely acceptable a few months later, and the reverse also sometimes applies.

Although prosecutors can re-file charges in these situations, that’s not always the outcome. Dismissals without prejudice (DWOP) do not toll the statute of limitations, so the clock keeps ticking while prosecutors start over from square one. There is often significant time pressure, as several months, or even longer, have normally elapsed since the date of the offense. Moreover, much of the physical evidence from the scene is probably gone and most officers destroy their notes shortly after they file their reports.

Sometimes, if prosecutors identify a defect before the case goes to trial, DWOPs are voluntary. Assume that prosecutors subpoena a chemist in response to the judge’s concerns about the evidence. But the chemist is not there on the day of trial, and the prosecutor knows from prior experience that the judge is unlikely to put off the hearing date. So, rather than go to trial without the chemist and hope for the best, the prosecutor may voluntarily dismiss the case, refile the charges later, and start over. Or, if the prosecutor identifies a variance, a concept that’s discussed below, the same thing might happen.


Sometimes, but not often, there is an incurable defect in the state’s case that merits a “case closed” dismissal. Time is one such incurable defect. If the statute of limitations has expired or the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied, nothing can turn back the clock and nothing can revive the prosecutor’s case. Similarly, officers cannot go back and obtain search warrants because the judge rules that they were necessary. Likewise, if investigators illegally questioned the defendant, they cannot go back in time and allow the defendant to call a lawyer.

The variance problem often comes up in these contexts as well. In a drug case, assume that the officers seized cocaine but the charging instrument alleges possession of heroin. This inconsistency is a fatal variance, because there is no evidence to support the heroin possession charge. A variance is not necessarily fatal, because of the idem sonans rule. In Latin, this phrase means “sounds alike;” in Legalese, it means “close enough.” The rule normally applies to typographical errors (e.g. David Brown instead of David Browne).

Typically, if the prosecutor spots a variance far enough in advance of trial, amending the charging instrument to conform with the evidence is a relatively simple procedure. Some judges even allow such amendments on the day of trial, in some cases.

Different types of dismissals have different effects on Los Angeles County prosecutions. For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, contact the Rodriguez Law Group. Home and jail visits are available.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.