Mitchell Wayne Steward, Sr. v. Joshua Alan Buckman
2020 CA 001559
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- Neighbors Mitchell W. Steward Sr. and Joshua A. Buckman had a long-standing, confrontational dispute; prior counseling had not resolved it.
- On November 30, 2019, Steward drove to the end of his driveway and struck Buckman with the butt of a .357 Magnum, causing serious head lacerations and a hematoma; Steward was not criminally indicted.
- After the assault Steward allegedly "spotlighted" Buckman’s home at night, shouted obscenities and taunts, and threatened that police would not help; Buckman documented these incidents and took countermeasures (moving a trailer to block the spotlight).
- Buckman obtained a temporary Interpersonal Protective Order (IPO) on December 4, 2019; a full hearing occurred February 19, 2020, and the circuit court issued a three-year IPO on May 12, 2020.
- Steward moved to alter or vacate the IPO under CR 59.05 (requesting additional findings); the motion was denied November 4, 2020, and Steward appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buckman) | Defendant's Argument (Steward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established a "course of conduct" (stalking) supporting an IPO | Assault plus repeated spotlighting, cursing, threats show two or more acts causing substantial distress and likely to recur | Findings insufficient; circuit court erred in concluding a course of conduct | Affirmed — circuit court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous; statutory elements satisfied |
| Whether Steward’s words were constitutionally protected activity that must be excluded | Statements were intimidation/taunting used to place Buckman in fear and thus not protected | Words were mere criticism of local police and constitutionally protected speech | Affirmed — court reasonably found the statements intimidating, not protected, so exclusion provision inapplicable |
| Whether Steward was entitled to self-defense or other immunity for the assault and later conduct | Steward’s acts were initiated by him and continued after the assault, not defensive | Actions were self-protection/defensive | Affirmed — evidence showed Steward initiated the encounter and subsequent harassment, so no immunity |
| Whether the circuit court applied correct standard of review and law | Trial court applied preponderance standard for IPOs and credibility determinations; its rulings deserve deference | Steward contended errors in findings and law application | Affirmed — court applied correct law (preponderance standard) and appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Halloway v. Simmons, 532 S.W.3d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017) (elements and burden for IPO/stalking explained)
- Dunn v. Thacker, 546 S.W.3d 576 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018) (preponderance standard in protective-order context)
- Baird v. Baird, 234 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (use of preponderance standard in domestic-violence orders)
- Jones v. Jones, 617 S.W.3d 418 (Ky. Ct. App. 2021) (appellate review principles for family/civil protective orders)
- Coffman v. Rankin, 260 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2008) (appellate standard: defer to trial court unless findings are clearly erroneous)