Fowler v. Minehart
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Fowler (school mechanic supervisor) filed an Adult Abuse/Stalking Petition against Minehart (husband of a bus driver Fowler disciplined) alleging stalking and harassment based on a threatening phone call and a heated on-campus conversation on January 22, 2013.
- Fowler sought a Full Order of Protection under the Adult Abuse Act; the trial court conducted a bench trial and, after about 17–18 minutes of examination, entered a Full Order of Protection.
- At trial, Officer Moore testified Fowler reported the phone call and that when Minehart came to the school Fowler asked to speak with him and wanted the officer present.
- Fowler testified Minehart told him by phone he would “come get you” and would “take care of you,” which Fowler felt threatened bodily harm (not an explicit death threat).
- The trial court found for Fowler, but on appeal the court reviewed whether the evidence supported the statutory elements of stalking, particularly the requirement of a “repeated” course of conduct (two or more incidents showing continuity of purpose).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported "stalking" under §455.010(13) (requires purposely and repeatedly engaging in an unwanted course of conduct) | Fowler argued the phone call and the on-campus confrontation together satisfied stalking elements and justified a Full Order of Protection | Minehart argued there was only one initiated incident (the phone call); the on-campus encounter was initiated by Fowler and therefore not "unwanted" contact or part of a repeated course | Court held evidence insufficient: Fowler failed to prove "repeated" acts or an "unwanted course of conduct," so stalking was not established and the Full Order must be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Van Pelt, 969 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. App. 1998) (courts must guard against abuse of stalking provision and require sufficient credible evidence for protection orders)
- Dennis v. Henley, 314 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. 2010) (single event insufficient to prove stalking)
- H.K.R. v. Stemmons, 295 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. App. 2009) (one incident does not meet stalking definition)
- Overstreet v. Kixmiller, 120 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. App. 2003) (one conversation and a memo insufficient for stalking)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Towell v. Steger, 154 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. App. 2005) (noting collateral consequences of protection orders, requiring careful review)