M.S. v. N.M.
485 S.W.3d 792
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- M.S. (petitioner) sought and obtained an ex parte order of protection under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act alleging N.M. stalked him; a full hearing followed.
- Two incidents formed the basis of the stalking claim: a heated in-person argument in summer 2012 at a baseball-league meeting (initiated by M.S.) and a threatening phone call from N.M. to M.S. on March 3, 2015.
- At the 2015 hearing M.S. testified the phone call included threats and left him shaken; a coworker confirmed M.S. looked upset and that M.S. called police immediately afterward.
- N.M. admitted the call included crude references to violence but denied making actual threats and characterized both encounters as heated disputes about league management.
- The trial court found N.M. engaged in “stalking” under section 455.010(13) and entered a full order of protection; N.M. appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding petitioner failed to prove the required repeated, unwanted course of conduct that caused alarm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.M.’s conduct constituted a “repeated” course of conduct under the stalking statute | The 2012 argument and 2015 phone call are two incidents showing repeated conduct evidencing continuity of purpose | The incidents were nearly three years apart, lacked continuity, and the 2012 encounter was not unwanted because M.S. initiated it | Reversed: two incidents separated by long lapse and lacking continuity do not show "repeated" course of conduct |
| Whether petitioner proved he was alarmed (fear of physical harm) by defendant’s conduct | The phone call threats caused subjective alarm and were objectively reasonable to cause fear | Defendant conceded crude violent references but disputed they established stalking or ongoing threats | Held: petitioner proved alarm from the phone call, but alarm from a single event is insufficient without repeated acts |
| Whether defendant’s conduct served no legitimate purpose (legitimacy of conduct) | Petitioner relied on alleged threats and past argument to show no legitimate purpose | Defendant argued disputed conduct related to league management; trial court excluded some evidence of petitioner’s business activities | Court declined to decide (issue not reached) where reversal granted on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- E.M.B. v. A.L., 462 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing court-tried cases and caution in labeling conduct as stalking)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976) (standards for appellate review of court-tried cases)
- Fowler v. Minehart, 412 S.W.3d 917 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (a heated conversation initiated by the petitioner did not qualify as unwanted communication)
- E.A.B. v. C.G.W., 415 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (alarm requires subjective and objective components)
- Skovira v. Talley, 369 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of alarm and stalking elements)
- Dennis v. Henley, 314 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (a single event causing alarm is insufficient to prove stalking)
Conclusion: The court reversed the full order of protection, holding petitioner failed to prove the statute’s required repeated, unwanted course of conduct despite evidence the March 3, 2015 call caused alarm.