PINETOP-LAKESIDE — According to a press release from Show Low Police, on August 8 about 10 p.m. 19-year-old Joey Jaurique was allegedly lured to Show Low Lake by a 17-year-old girl and severely beaten by two teen boys, whose ages are listed as 16 and 17 by police.
Jaurique was flown to a Valley hospital and underwent a six-hour surgery to his face and jaw. He is recovering in Lakeside, say social media reports.
Now Joey Jaurique had been slapped with an injunction against harassment from the parent of a boy and on behalf the boy, who alleged that Jaurique had in the past, fractured the boy’s face, and threatened the boy with a firearm on August 8, the very same day Jaurique was allegedly assaulted.
The three juvenile suspects in Jaurique’s beating have not been named and none so far has been charged (as adults, anyway) but this new development against Jaurique is curious, to say the least.
For ease of reading, it might be noted that a common Spanish language pronunciation of the name “Jaurique,” is “HOW ree kee.” In fact, according to Navajo County Superior Court records, in May, 2018, one Krystal Chastity Jaurique-Caso appeared in a name change case involving a minor, Joey Jaurique-Fernandez whose date of birth in court records is the same month and year as Joey Jaurique.
On August 10, the Pinetop Lakeside Justice Court ordered Jaurique enjoined from having any contact with a juvenile male whose name has been redacted from court records, and is prohibited from going on or near the boy’s home, workplace, Blue Ridge High School, and the family pets. Further, Jaurique is prohibited from possessing firearms during the duration of the injunction, typically one year from the date of service of the order on the defendant. Because the protected person in this case is a minor, an adult possibly his mother swore out the petition which the judge granted.
There are three kinds of protective orders on the books in Arizona, sometimes still called “peace bonds,” in which a court orders no contact from one person to others. Violating such an order is a misdemeanor and can carry a jail term of six months, three years of probation and/or a $2,500 fine. An Order of Protection applies to persons who are related to each other or have lived together, who have had a “romantic or sexual relationship,” or merely just dated. An order of protection is relatively easy to get. All that a plaintiff in an order of protection proceeding has to swear to is that there “has been or may be” an act of domestic violence against the petitioner. In turn, acts of domestic violence are defined quite broadly in the law and include many more actions than those that naturally come to mind when one hears the phrase. For example, domestic violence can include assault both the injury and non-injury types, but also criminal damage, disorderly conduct, (aka disturbing the peace) various sex crimes and even trespassing. There’s no charge to the plaintiff for the cost of serving the order.
On the other hand, an Injunction Against Harassment, like the one against Jaurique, involves persons not related by blood or marriage and who have never lived together. And merely one act of harassment isn’t enough to get an injunction; otherwise someone who got flipped off in traffic or was insulted by a fellow shopper could run to the nearest courthouse and ask for a court order if the offender could be identified. Rather, there must have been a “series of acts,” which serves to “alarm, annoy or harass” someone and serves “no legitimate purpose,” according to the statue. A plaintiff is responsible for the cost of serving the injunction but a court can waive it.
Finally, the third type is called an Injunction Against Workplace Harassment that doesn’t require a series of acts, but that topic is outside the scope of this article.
The injunction against Jaurique
In this case the injunction was served on Jaurique August 18. According to the petition, the plaintiff swore under oath that Jaurique in March, assaulted the minor male on school grounds and caused “several fractures to his (the minor’s) face and stitches.” The plaintiff also alleged that the following August 8, “Joey has made several threats against (the minor) and other altercation happened (sic) Joey had a gun. (Minor) was forced to defend himself. Joey was high on xanex. (sic) We (plaintiff) fear for (minor’s) life.”
As stared, it is noteworthy that the date of August 8 is the very same date that Jaurique was allegedly beat up at Show Low Lake. There is some suggestion (see below) but no confirmation, that one of the minors who allegedly assailed Jaurique is connected to the injunction action against Jaurique.
Courts have the option to set a hearing before issuing any kind of protective order. But in situations where a plaintiff has sworn under oath that firearms were involved, it seems prudent to issue one without hearing from the other side. It is well known that judges prefer to hear the whole story before making any decision but issuing an order without hearing from the other side is rare in the law, but allowed in these types of cases. However, the defendant has the right to contest the matter at a hearing and Jaurique has attempted to do that.
But Jaurique’s request came from a parent of his, and Jaurique is an adult. If the parent is not a licensed attorney or a court-appointed legal guardian, the parent has no standing to do that. That irregularity did not go unnoticed by the plaintiff’s lawyer who has since moved the court to cancel the hearing. Parent also filed a motion on Jaurique’s behalf asking that Jaurique be allowed to appear by phone at the hearing because “He has been very emotionally and psychologically damaged by the Physical (sic) attack from (plaintiff’s son) and his friend. His mouth is wired shut due to this attack an (sic) Joey has been severely traumatized. Please consider — thank you.” As of press time, the court has not ruled on any of the motions.
This is not a criminal proceeding; rather Orders of Protection and Injunctions Against Harassment are civil in nature, and to win, a plaintiff must prove to the judge (not a jury) that it is “more likely than not” that things happened the way the plaintiff says they did. The hearing in this case is set for Sept. 23.