249 N.C. App. 269
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Former spouses Jarrett (defendant) and Rayfield Jarrett (plaintiff) divorced in 2011 and share two children; plaintiff filed a DVPO petition on July 20, 2015 (amended July 24, 2015).
- Plaintiff alleged defendant followed her on the highway, cut her off and slammed brakes (March, May, mid‑June 2015), videotaped/photographed her, attended children’s events after being asked not to, threatened a child, and caused substantial emotional distress including a July 27, 2015 hospital admission for heart palpitations.
- At the August 19, 2015 bench hearing defendant moved for involuntary dismissal at close of plaintiff’s evidence; both sides presented testimony including plaintiff, her children, and witnesses.
- On August 24, 2015 the trial court entered a one‑year DVPO finding three stalking incidents after January 11, 2015, ordering no contact, stay‑away, prohibition on purchasing firearms, and surrender/suspension of concealed‑carry permit.
- On October 2, 2015 the court ruled allegations on or before January 11, 2015 were precluded by earlier adverse litigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel), but claims after that date were not; defendant appealed limited aspects of the DVPO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competent evidence supports finding defendant committed domestic violence (placing plaintiff in fear/causing substantial emotional distress) | Plaintiff argued testimony showed three post‑Jan 11, 2015 highway incidents causing substantial emotional distress and medical treatment | Defendant denied the incidents and challenged admissibility and sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence | Held: Competent evidence supported findings and conclusion of domestic violence; judgment upheld |
| Whether the conduct constituted stalking under N.C.G.S. § 14‑277.3A | Plaintiff argued repeated following/pulling in front/slamming brakes was willful harassment causing substantial emotional distress | Defendant argued insufficient evidence of stalking and contended testimony was conflicting/hearsay | Held: Trial court properly found three acts met statutory stalking elements |
| Admissibility of various testimony (hearsay, relevance, lack of personal knowledge) | Plaintiff relied on testimony to show distress, incidents, and impact on children | Defendant objected to hearsay, irrelevant or non‑personal knowledge evidence | Held: Even if some evidence was inadmissible, any error was harmless because the court relied on other competent evidence; objections overruled |
| Whether court properly ordered surrender of firearms and suspension of concealed‑carry permit under § 50B‑3.1 | Plaintiff sought weapon surrender and permit suspension as part of protective relief | Defendant argued statutory criteria for surrender/suspension (use/threat of deadly weapon, threats to kill, suicide threats, serious injuries) were not met | Held: Prohibition on purchasing firearms and stay‑away upheld; orders requiring surrender of specific firearms and suspension of permit vacated because statutory findings for § 50B‑3.1 were not made |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensey v. Hennessy, 201 N.C. App. 56 (appellate review standard for bench DVPO findings)
- Brandon v. Brandon, 132 N.C. App. 646 (trial court credibility determinations entitled to great deference)
- Lewis v. Gastonia Air Service, Inc., 16 N.C. App. 317 (notice pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Little v. Little, 226 N.C. App. 499 (hearsay generally inadmissible)
- McNabb v. Bryson City, 82 N.C. App. 385 (appellant must show prejudice from improper evidence)
- Stancill v. Stancill, 773 S.E.2d 890 (surrender of firearms requires statutory findings under § 50B‑3.1)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 93 N.C. App. 639 (party who presents evidence after denial of motion to dismiss waives right to appeal denial)
- Thomas v. Williams, 773 S.E.2d 900 (§ 50B‑1(a)(2) uses subjective test for fear/substantial emotional distress)