Bohannon v. Robinson
2014 Ark. 458
| Ark. | 2014Background
- On June 4, 2013, Edward Robinson petitioned for an ex parte order of protection on behalf of his infant son A.R. against the child’s mother, Krystal Bohannon, alleging prior DUI/drug-related driving with children and a recent accident. The court entered a temporary ex parte order effective until June 17, 2013.
- Bohannon was served while incarcerated; the circuit-court hearing on the petition occurred June 17, 2013, but Bohannon did not attend because she remained jailed. Robinson appeared and testified; the court found sufficient evidence of domestic abuse and entered a final order of protection awarding temporary custody to Robinson through June 16, 2016.
- Bohannon filed posttrial motions (new trial / relief / set aside default); a July 31, 2013 hearing was held on those motions where Bohannon argued she was denied due process and that the evidence was insufficient. The court denied relief.
- The court of appeals affirmed, relying on Wills v. Lacefield to conclude certain arguments were not preserved; Bohannon sought and this court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held that (1) a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in a civil bench trial need not be raised at trial to be preserved on appeal, overruling Wills to the extent it conflicted, and (2) the circuit court clearly erred because the June 17 hearing lacked competent evidence supporting a finding that Bohannon inflicted fear of imminent physical harm on A.R.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Bohannon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is waived if not raised at the bench trial | Issues raised for the first time on appeal should be barred per court of appeals’ reading of Wills | In civil bench trials, a party may challenge sufficiency on appeal even if not raised below | Court: Not waived; civil bench-trial sufficiency claims may be raised on appeal (Wills overruled to that extent) |
| Whether evidence at the June 17 hearing supported a finding of "domestic abuse" under the Domestic Abuse Act | Petition and Robinson’s testimony established prior DUI/drug driving with children and an accident supporting fear of imminent harm | Testimony at the hearing was speculative or unsupported (no proof of drug use, unclear charges, A.R. not in one accident); Bohannon denied opportunity to be heard | Court: Circuit court clearly erred; evidence presented at the June 17 hearing was insufficient to support final order of protection |
| Whether Bohannon was denied due process by being unable to attend the June 17 hearing while incarcerated | Robinson and court proceeded; ex parte temporary order had been issued and hearing was held | Bohannon argued she was incarcerated and could not be heard before entry of final order | Court did not base reversal solely on due-process ground but noted lack of adequate evidence and affirmed reviewability of sufficiency claim; relief granted (order vacated) |
| Whether the court of appeals’ reliance on Wills prevents this court from reviewing the sufficiency claim | Court of appeals held some issues not preserved under Wills | Bohannon argued Wills conflicted with longstanding bench-trial precedent | Court: Wills was inconsistent with precedent and is overruled to extent of conflict; this court reviews sufficiency on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingle v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 303 (Ark. 2014) (bench-trial sufficiency may be raised on appeal)
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchs. & Planters Bank, 256 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2007) (bench-trial sufficiency preserved for appeal)
- Cochran v. Bentley, 251 S.W.3d 253 (Ark. 2007) (standard of review for bench trials: clearly erroneous)
- Oates v. Oates, 10 S.W.3d 861 (Ark. 2000) (civil bench-trial sufficiency precedent)
- Firstbank of Ark. v. Keeling, 850 S.W.2d 310 (Ark. 1993) (same)
- Sipes v. Munro, 697 S.W.2d 905 (Ark. 1985) (same)
- Bass v. Roller, 632 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1982) (same)