ENID, Okla. — An Enid attorney arrested Sunday on a domestic battery complaint has been charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor stemming from the incident.
Robert Roy Faulk, 40, was charged Wednesday with domestic abuse-prior pattern of physical abuse, domestic assault and battery by strangulation and intimidating a witness. He also was charged with a misdemeanor count of domestic abuse-assault and battery.
An Enid attorney was arrested early Sunday morning on a complaint of domestic battery, records show.
He was released about six hours after his arrest on a $10,000 recognizance bond.
Faulk made his initial appearance on the charges Thursday with his attorney J. David Ogle before Associate District Judge Allison Lafferty.
Ogle waived reading of the charges and asked the court to enter a not guilty plea on his client’s behalf.
Motion to revoke OR bond
Faulk was released Sunday morning on an own recognizance bond promising he would appear in court or pay $10,000 if he did not appear.
When charges were filed Wednesday in Garfield County District Court, District Attorney Mike Fields also filed a motion to revoke Faulk’s recognizance bond.
The motion states Faulk was arrested about 2:20 a.m. Sunday on a complaint of domestic assault and battery by strangulation. Faulk was released on the OR bond granted verbally by Special District Judge Brian Lovell.
“The Judge made this verbal order without consultation with the District Attorney’s Office and presumably after an ex parte communication with a defense attorney who contacted him on the Defendant’s behalf (ex parte communications are expressly prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as the Code of Judicial Conduct),” according to Fields’ motion.
The motion states Faulk did not appear in person before a magistrate, judge or court as required by Oklahoma law in domestic violence cases.
According to the motion, a judge “shall consider” seven factors when setting bond and bond conditions. Because of Faulk’s release about six hours after his arrest, the district attorney’s office and law enforcement were prevented from telling the judge any of the seven factors to be considered for bond.
According to the motion, Fields’ office is aware of “at least” four document incidents between 2008 and 2015 where Faulk was alleged have committed violent acts toward women.
“The State believes the Defendant has been a threat to the victim in this case for at least six years,” according to the motion. “She had been repeatedly victimized by the Defendant and her safety remains threatened by Defendant’s release without safeguards entered by this court.”
The motion also alleges the “no contact” order of Faulk’s bond was violated “within a very short time of release from jail.”
Response to motion
Ogle filed a response Thursday to the motion to revoke Faulk’s recognizance bond.
The response states the purpose of bond in Oklahoma is to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court and not to punish those accused of crimes.
According to response, the court can consider the seriousness of the crime charges, the defendant’s criminal record, defendant’s reputation and mental condition, residency in the community, family ties and relationships, employment status, members of the community who would vouch for the defendant’s reliability, and factors indicating a defendant’s bearing on failing to appear when setting bond.
The response states Faulk previously pleaded guilty to misdemeanor public intoxication and appeared at each court date “promptly” and completed all probation, resulting in the case being dismissed. The response states “there is no indication he has any recent history of abusing alcohol.”
“Mr. Faulk has an excellent reputation in his community,” according to the response. The response states Faulk has won awards for his community service and civic contributions. He has been an active member of several civic organizations.
The response also notes Faulk’s long-time residence in the community, employment and family ties to the area.
“There are dozens of responsible members who could testify to the reliability of Mr. Faulk, including most of the Courthouse,” according to the response.
“The Defendant strongly disputes the allegations of strangulation. In fact, the alleged victim herself repeatedly and strongly told the officers there was no strangulation and objected to the language in a search warrant that stated strangulation,” according to the response.
A citation to that portion of the response states, “One could speculate that the fact that Mr. Faulk is a successful and effective criminal defense attorney and one that consistently criticizes this Police Department could have been a factor in the unheard of effort by police to seek permission to search and photograph in the unclothed condition this uncooperative alleged victim. Further argument could be made, but better made another day, that the professional history of Mr. Faulk contributed to the District Attorney’s office overcharging this case.”
The response also states Faulk was never told of a “no contact order” upon his release from county jail.
Attached to the response as an exhibit is an email from the woman’s attorney. It states, “... I would appreciate it if you would inform the court, on my behalf, that my client is in no way fearful of Mr. Faulk and explicitly does not want any type of ‘no contact’ provision as any condition on his bond.”
‘The fix is in’
At the hearing, Lafferty told the court she knew Faulk’s bond would be the biggest issue after she read the motion and response filed in the case.
She then asked Assistant District Attorney Sean Hill if it was his opinion there was a “no-contact” order issued with the bond.
Hill told the judge it was his understanding there was a no-contact order. Ogle said the alleged victim in the case did not want a no-contact order.
Hill argued the OR bond was set illegally.
“There is no other way to say it,” Hill said. “The OR bond, from its inception, is invalid because of how it came to be. This issue needs to be addressed.”
Ogle said the judge who set the OR bond knew Faulk and has dealt with him often at the courthouse. He said the judge did take into account the factors he was required by law to consider.
Hill noted it appeared Faulk was being treated differently than anyone else, which he called “wrong.”
“It looks like the fix is in,” Hill said.”That is the overarching problem.”
Lafferty said she’s never given a defendant an OR bond in a domestic violence case.
She said it was like the state wants her to punish Faulk because he got out on an OR bond. She said she can’t change bond drastically without more evidence and asked Hill to subpoena those he would need to present evidence for a hearing on the motions.
Lafferty set bond for Faulk at $5,000 with a condition being he have “no contact with the victim in the case, or her family, by any means at all.”
Online court records show Faulk posted the bond Thursday morning.
A hearing on the motions was set for 4 p.m. May 21.
‘ … The cops are here’
According to an affidavit filed in the case, at 1:45 a.m. Sunday Enid Police Department officers received a call reporting a man dragging a woman into a residence in the 1100 block of Indian Drive. The caller said the man was assaulting the woman.
Sgt. Aaron Barber found the residence and saw the front door open, according to the affidavit. Barber knocked and did not get an answer but could hear loud thuds coming from inside. Sgt. Lee Frisendahl arrived to assist.
While knocking, Barber saw Faulk walk through the hallway, look at him and continue into a room, according to the affidavit. Barber continued to knock loudly and yelled “Police Department.” Frisendahl went to the rear of the residence and advised Barber via radio he could hear fighting in the bedroom.
The fighting, the reporting party’s statements and Faulk’s refusal to acknowledge police led Barber to believe the woman inside was in “imminent danger of serious bodily harm,” Barber wrote in the affidavit. Frisendahl came to the front of the residence, and the officers entered.
Barber could hear a woman crying and a man’s voice speaking. Barber, with his sidearm drawn, announced again and went to the room where he saw Faulk, according to the report. Barber wrote it sounded like someone was coughing or being choked.
Barber ordered Faulk to step out, with his hands up and Faulk stepped into the hallway and was placed into handcuffs, according to the affidavit. Frisendahl took Faulk outside.
Barber went into the bedroom and found a woman crouched behind the door sobbing, according to the affidavit. The woman was naked. Barber told her she would be OK and asked if she was all right. Barber asked what was going on.
The woman said they’d gone to a friend’s graduation party, then to Oakwood Country Club and then she went to her friends’ house, according to the report. Barber asked if Faulk injured her and she said, “I don’t know, maybe.”
In the report, Barber noted he could see marks on the woman’s chest and collarbone area. He also wrote, “Her hair was disheveled, and she appeared extremely scared.” Barber told Frisendahl that Faulk was going to jail.
Barber and the woman went into the living room to speak. She asked where Faulk was, and Barber said he was not there, according to the affidavit. Barber told the woman a neighbor called and said they saw Faulk drag her into the house and hit her. The woman responded, “Yeah.”
Barber asked the woman to be honest about the situation, and she said Faulk was mad because she had gone to her friends’ house, according to the affidavit. Frisendahl told the woman the police were trying to help. She said, “Can’t say anything.” She told police she’d been in a relationship with Faulk for about nine years.
The woman told police she did not want to tell them the truth because it would get Faulk into trouble, according to the affidavit. Barber told the woman she wasn’t at fault and she did not need to tolerate the abuse. The woman attempted to justify Faulk’s behavior by stating it was her fault she went to her friends’ house.
The woman said Faulk would not have been upset if she had not gone over there, according to the affidavit. Barber told her whether Faulk had a right to be upset or not did not matter because he crossed the line when he put his hands on her. Barber asked her if she thought it was OK that he did that. The woman said, “No, what he did was wrong.”
Barber asked her how many times Faulk hit her. She responded, “I don’t,” followed by a long pause. She then said in a different tone, “I don’t think he hit me,” according to the affidavit. Barber asked what he did, and she said, “I don’t know, I can’t remember.”
Barber asked her what happened when she was dragged inside. She said, “I don’t know, I was just scared,” according to the affidavit. Barber asked why, and the woman said, “Because I didn’t want to f------ die.” Barber asked if Faulk choked her. The woman said, “Maybe, I don’t know” and began crying. Barber asked if he choked her until she passed out, and the woman nodded yes.
The woman said she did not know how long she was out. She said she was behind the door and that’s all she knew, according to the affidavit. She said she woke up and Faulk told her to “shut the f--- up the cops are here.”
Frisendahl checked the woman’s eyes for petechial hemorrhaging but was unable to tell because the woman had been crying, according to the affidavit. Barber noted the injuries on the woman’s chest he saw earlier were covered by her clothing.
Faulk faces up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 and post-imprisonment supervision on the domestic abuse-prior pattern of physical abuse charge; one to three years in prison and/or a fine of up to $3,000 and post-imprisonment supervision on the domestic assault and battery by strangulation charge; and one to 10 years in prison and post-imprisonment supervision on the intimidation of a witness charge.