Martin v. Martin
545 S.W.3d 162
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Ronnie Martin and Tammy Martin separated; Tammy filed for protective order March 22, 2016, alleging family violence toward her and her two daughters, A.F. and S.F.
- Tammy testified to three incidents: a years-earlier open-hand slap, a February 21 shove (no injury), and a March 21 incident where Ronnie grabbed her head and pushed her face into a wall producing a bruise.
- Tammy denied any past physical or verbal abuse of the children and said she was not seeking protection for them, though the original application named them.
- Trial court issued an eight-month protective order prohibiting direct communication and presence within 350 feet of Tammy and the two children, and made findings that family violence occurred and was likely to occur.
- Ronnie appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence supporting past family violence and likelihood of future violence; the protective order had since expired, but collateral-consequences exception preserved review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tammy) | Defendant's Argument (Martin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of past family violence finding | Tammy: testified March 21 assault occurred (bruise), plus earlier incidents | Martin: testimony contradictory; timeline and other witnesses undermine occurrence | Court: Evidence legally sufficient as to Tammy—March 21 push causing bruise meets family violence definition |
| Legal sufficiency of future-violence finding | Tammy: testified she feared him; said if he showed up "something would happen" | Martin: Tammy equivocated; cannot predict future violence; timeline issues | Court: Factfinder could credit Tammy; past violent act permits inference of likelihood of future violence as to Tammy |
| Inclusion of children as protected persons | Tammy's application named children among protected persons | Martin: No evidence of any violence toward children; Tammy denied assaults or threats to them | Court: Legally insufficient evidence of past/future violence as to children; order reformed to remove children as defined protected persons but retain certain prohibitions as family/household members |
| Factual sufficiency of findings | Tammy: timeline estimates and credibility support findings | Martin: timeline and alibi evidence negate assault | Court: Considering all evidence and credibility determinations, findings were not so against the great weight as to be manifestly unjust; upheld as to Tammy, reversed in part for children |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standards for civil findings)
- Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. 1996) (factual-sufficiency standard)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility)
- Marshall v. Housing Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (collateral-consequences exception to mootness)
- State for Protection of Cockerham v. Cockerham, 218 S.W.3d 298 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (reviewability of expired protective orders)
- In re Epperson, 213 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007) (past violent conduct can support protective order)