Daves v. Kohan, 385 P.3d 1161

Petitioner and respondent lived on the same property: petitioner rented the house; respondent lived in an RV and owned the property and horse arena. Relations deteriorated and temporary stalking protective orders (SPOs) had been issued previously.
Petitioner alleged two unwanted contacts by respondent within two years: (1) approaching from behind in the arena, pressing against her and massaging her shoulders; (2) peering through her bathroom window while she was bathing, prompting her to scream.
Respondent denied the incidents, asserted alibis, and said he had corroborating witnesses (girlfriend and a client) who would contradict petitioner.
At the permanent-SPO hearing, the court heard live testimony from petitioner, petitioner's husband, and respondent; the court declined to call two of respondent’s proposed witnesses after concluding their testimony had minimal probative value or would be cumulative.
The trial court found petitioner more credible, concluded both contacts occurred, held they caused subjective and objectively reasonable alarm, and entered a permanent SPO under ORS 30.866(1).
On appeal, respondent argued (1) insufficient evidence of reasonable apprehension regarding personal safety, and (2) the hearing was unfair because the court denied cross-examination and excluded two of his witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner proved subjective and objective alarm from two or more unwanted contacts under ORS 30.866(1)	Petitioner argued her reactions (crying, wanting to move, screaming when observed in bathroom) show she was subjectively alarmed and a person in her situation would reasonably fear physical harm	Respondent argued petitioner’s conduct after incidents (no police call, laughing over unplugged cord, moving away voluntarily) showed she was not alarmed and evidence was insufficient	Court held evidence supported both subjective alarm and objective reasonableness for each contact and cumulatively; SPO affirmed
Whether trial court denied respondent a fair hearing by preventing cross-examination	Petitioner implicitly argued court controlled the hearing legitimately and petitioner presented live testimony for credibility assessment	Respondent argued he was effectively denied the right to cross-examine and to present two witnesses who would corroborate alibis	Court declined to review cross-examination claim as unpreserved and found no explicit denial; exclusion of two witnesses was within discretion under OEC 403 as their testimony was minimally probative or cumulative

King v. W. T. F., 276 Or App 533 (2016) (standard of proof and elements for SPO; appellate review framing)
Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122 (2002) (alarm objectively reasonable despite no history of violence)
Howell-Hooyman v. Hooyman, 113 Or App 548 (1992) (trial court control over presentation of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Johnson v. Captain, 281 Or App 360 (2016) (cannot wholly deny right to cross-examine; plain error when court explicitly prohibits cross-examination)
Braude v. Braude, 250 Or App 122 (2012) (context and history can change character of otherwise benign conduct)
Habrat v. Milligan, 208 Or App 229 (2006) (objective alarm may be found absent overt threats where conduct is obsessive and others take protective steps)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (1991) (preservation requirement for appellate review of trial error)
Bryant v. Walker, 190 Or App 253 (2003) (distinguishing when court’s conduct amounts to denial of cross-examination)