[DV_listserv] Two civil stalking order cases from last week

[Domestic Violence issues]

       D.A. v. White

Date Filed: 12/05/2012

Case #: A149377

Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A149377.pdf



Civil Stalking Protective Order: Under ORS 163.738, the "official

duties" exceptions of ORS 163.755(1)(c) will not apply, effectively

barring the use of a work place incident from counting towards the

issuance of a stalking protective order, if the respondent "intended"

to intimidate the petitioner with the workplace incident.



Mr. White, Respondent, appealed the trial court's granting of a

stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 163.738. White claimed that

the trial court erred in issuing the SPO because both parties were

employees at the Drug Enforcement Agency at the time of the incident.

Therefore, according to White, the "official duties" section of ORS

163.755(1)(c) should apply and bar the issuance of the SPO. The Court

of Appeals held that if White's intent was to "intimidate" D.A.

(Petitioner) while at work, the "official duties" section would not

apply. Since the trial court found that White did intend to intimidate

D.A., they properly held that the official duties section did not

apply and the SPO could be issued. Affirmed.



[Summarized by Raun Atkinson]



3.            V.A.N. v. Parsons

Date Filed: 12/05/2012

Case #: A150909

Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/opinions/A150909.pdf



Civil Stalking Protective Order: ORS 30.866 requires that evidence in

support of a stalking order prove that the contact reveals an

unequivocal threat that instills a fear of serious and physical injury

from the speaker that is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful

acts. Without other evidence, a threat to "confront" a person does not

involve violence or other unlawful acts.



Parsons challenged the sufficiency of a permanent stalking order that

was entered against him based on numerous text messages sent to V.A.N.

over several months. The trial court found that V.A.N. felt physically

threatened because Parsons knew where she lived, and in one of his

last messages, Parsons threatened to "confront" V.A.N. at home and at

work. At the hearing, Parsons moved to dismiss the case, challenging

the sufficiency of the evidence under ORS 30.866, claiming (1) he was

unaware that his contacts were unwanted, (2) the contacts did not

instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence, (3) the

contacts did not involve unequivocal threats likely to be followed up

by unlawful acts, and (4) V.A.N.'s alarm was not objectively

reasonable. The trial court denied the motion, and Parsons appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed based on State v. Rangel, holding that

the dispositive requirement for a stalking order is that the contacts

must involve unequivocal threats that are objectively likely to be

followed up by unlawful acts, and the text messages in this case do

not meet that standard. There is no evidence that Parsons' threat to

"confront" V.A.N. would involve violence or other "unlawful acts."

Reversed.



[Summarized by Katherine Yancey]


*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20121210/d2152044/attachment.html>