Halloway v. Simmons
532 S.W.3d 158
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Denise Halloway and James Simmons dated and lived together in 2014; they broke up in November 2015.
- After the breakup, Simmons alleged prior physical assault by Halloway (Belterra, 2015); no police report or protection order followed.
- In April–May 2016 the parties encountered each other at restaurants (Captain’s Quarters and Levee); Simmons sent explicit, degrading text messages to Halloway and her son.
- Halloway obtained an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) in Jefferson County (May 13, 2016); Simmons violated it (May 18, 2016) and a Jefferson County Domestic Violence Order (DVO) was entered (May 24, 2016) restraining Simmons.
- Simmons then petitioned for an Interpersonal Protective Order (IPO) in Oldham County (June 14, 2016), alleging Halloway stalked him and might manipulate the system to target his location; the Oldham trial court granted a one‑year IPO requiring Halloway to stay 300 feet away.
- On appeal the Kentucky Court of Appeals held the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and the facts did not satisfy statutory stalking elements, and reversed to vacate the IPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported finding of stalking under KRS 508.130/508.150 for an IPO | Simmons: Halloway intentionally went to places he was, would target his location, and would have him arrested for DVO violations; past incidents and comments show intent and fear of physical harm | Halloway: Encounters were innocent presence at public places; she was free to go anywhere and did not intentionally engage in a course of conduct causing substantial distress | Held: Reversed — facts did not show two or more intentional acts meeting stalking definition or causing reasonable person substantial mental distress; court’s fear finding was not supported. |
| Whether fear element (reasonable fear of physical injury/death/sexual contact) was satisfied | Simmons: He feared physical harm and feared being targeted to manipulate the legal system | Halloway: Fear was speculative; Simmons’s fear of arrest or of being targeted for DVO enforcement does not meet statutory fear element | Held: Not satisfied — trial court’s stated fear of physical harm was clearly erroneous and unsupported. |
| Whether prior incidents (pre‑DVO encounters and alleged 2015 assault) constituted course of conduct or threats | Simmons: Prior encounters and alleged assault show pattern and past violence supporting stalking finding | Halloway: Prior incidents either predate DVO and were not threats; alleged assault had no official record; encounters alone have legitimate purposes | Held: Not sufficient — prior facts did not establish pattern meeting statute or an implicit/explicit threat. |
| Whether appeal was moot due to IPO expiration | Simmons (implicit): Order still relevant to protect rights | Halloway: IPO expired Aug 5, 2017 | Held: Not moot — collateral consequences doctrine applies; merits reached and IPO vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 634 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. 1982) (standard for disturbing circuit court factual findings)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 127 S.W.3d 656 (Ky. App. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998) (substantial evidence explained)
- Sherfey v. Sherfey, 74 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. App. 2002) (substantial-evidence principles)
- Calhoun v. Wood, 516 S.W.3d 357 (Ky. App. 2017) (collateral consequences exception to mootness)