Conviction Alert: Mark Boudreaux Found Guilty!

Conviction Alert: Mark Boudreaux Found Guilty!

Jury finds Mark Boudreaux guilty in protective order case

Following a brief deliberation, a jury found Mark Boudreaux guilty of violation of a protective order, second offense, in a trial held last week in district court.

The jury trial began March 31 and concluded April 1, when a six-member jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.

Prosecutors presented evidence that Boudreaux knowingly violated the terms of an active protective order previously issued for the protection of the victim, his former spouse. Assistant District Attorneys Jenny Donaghey Beckham and Emily Edwards Bertholl argued the violation was willful and constituted a repeat offense under Louisiana law, increasing the seriousness of the charge.

During the one-day trial, the jury heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the circumstances of the alleged contact in violation of the court’s order. After a short deliberation, the jury returned the guilty verdict.

The defendant was represented by Chad Guillot, who in closing arguments referred to Boudreaux as a “troubled” man.

District Attorney Charles Riddle thanked those who participated in the process, stating,

“We appreciate all the prospective jurors who came to serve and thank them. To those who served, thank you. The system cannot work without our citizens.”

A conviction for violation of a protective order, second offense, carries enhanced penalties under Louisiana law due to the repeat nature of the offense. Sentencing is expected to occur in May and will be imposed by Judge Kerry Spruill. This will be the second time Boudreaux will be sentenced by Judge Spruill for violating a protective order.

The defendant was released on a post-conviction bond a few hours after his conviction.

Protective orders are issued by courts to safeguard individuals from harassment, threats or harm. Violating such an order is considered a criminal offense, and repeat violations may result in more significant penalties.

The case underscores the legal system’s enforcement of court-issued protective orders and the consequences for failing to comply with their terms.