Korby Kencayd, Et Ano. v. Bryen Von Priece, 74665-1

Neighbors' long-running dispute: Von Priece (respondent) frequently walked his dog past Randle and Korby Kencayd's property and wore a hat-mounted video camera; the Kencayds run a bed-and-breakfast.
Two recorded October and December 2015 face-to-face verbal altercations between Von Priece and Randle; recordings existed but were not filed in proper court format.
Von Priece earlier sought an anti-harassment order against the Kencayds and played the recordings at that hearing; that petition was denied.
The Kencayds then petitioned for a stalking protection order alleging repeated, daily conduct (walking back and forth waiting for interactions), a vile phone message, and a false Yelp review.
At the stalking hearing the trial court denied Von Priece’s effort to have his video recordings considered (finding they would not change the ruling and were not in the proper format), found stalking by a preponderance of the evidence, and entered a protection order.
Von Priece appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence, erroneous exclusion of his offer of proof (the videos), and denial of due process/cross-examination rights.

Issue	Von Priece's Argument	Kencayds' Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports the stalking protection order	Evidence insufficient; two recorded interactions do not show stalking of Korby and others	Testimony of repeated daily conduct, corroborating Yelp/declaration, messages constitute stalking course of conduct	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports stalking finding
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider video recordings (offer of proof)	Videos would contradict Kencayds and show only two interactions; thus admissible and material	Videos were cumulative, not properly filed/format, and would not undercut stalking allegations	No abuse of discretion — court afforded opportunity to explain, recordings wouldn’t alter findings
Whether exclusion of recordings violated due process / right to cross-examine	Exclusion and limiting cross-examination denied procedural due process	Court balanced rapid protection proceedings, allowed parties to present and question witnesses	No due process violation; scope of cross-examination was discretionary and properly managed
Whether court relied on speculative allegations (e.g., weapon threats)	Court improperly relied on allegations about weapons	Court did not rely on weapon allegations and found weapons were not part of interactions	No error — court did not base ruling on speculative weapon claims

In re Marriage of Freeman, 169 Wn.2d 664 (recognizing abuse-of-discretion standard for protection-order rulings)
In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (applying substantial-evidence review when court hears contradictory evidence)
Boisen v. Burgess, 87 Wn. App. 912 (definition of substantial evidence standard)
In re Marriage of Stewart, 133 Wn. App. 545 (protection order proceedings are intended to be rapid and efficient)
Blackmon v. Blackmon, 155 Wn. App. 715 (trial court’s broad discretion on evidentiary rulings in domestic matters)
Thor v. McDearmid, 63 Wn. App. 193 (functions and purposes of an offer of proof)
Falk v. Keene Corp., 53 Wn. App. 238 (scope of cross-examination is an evidentiary discretionary ruling)