Han Chong v. Jung Hee Kim (mem dec.)
53A01-1609-PO-2073
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Kim, a Korean investor who purchased a Bloomington sake bar, worked closely with Chong, a local business owner who helped her with operations, housing, transportation, and socialized with her and her children.
- Kim petitioned for an order of protection alleging stalking and sex-offense conduct based on repeated sexual comments, a text referencing sexual thoughts after an adult bookstore visit, statements about preferential treatment for sexual favors, and Chong’s disclosure that he owned a handgun.
- The trial court held hearings on January 4 and 8, 2016, then orally ordered mutual no-contact and later (August 8, 2016) entered a protective order finding Kim a stalking victim.
- Kim testified that Chong’s remarks made her feel ashamed, embarrassed, and somewhat threatened; she also said Korean norms about guns heightened her fear.
- There was no evidence Kim asked Chong to stop before filing, no evidence Chong contacted Kim after the petition, and no evidence Chong ever used or brandished the handgun to threaten her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported issuance of a protective order on stalking grounds | Kim argued Chong’s repeated sexual comments, suggestive texts, references to a gun, and in-person proximity after the petition constituted stalking/harassment that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized or threatened | Chong argued the communications were sexual but nonthreatening, there was no request to stop or persistent contact after any request, no threats of physical harm, and insufficient objective evidence that a reasonable person would feel terrorized | Reversed: court held evidence was insufficient to show a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened; protective order was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Maurer v. Cobb-Maurer, 994 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for issuing protective orders and sufficiency review)
- Cruse v. C.C., 58 N.E.3d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (stalking requires objective showing that reasonable person would feel terrorized or threatened)
- C.V. v. C.R., 64 N.E.3d 850 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (insufficient stalking where notes were non-threatening and petitioner did not ask respondent to stop)