03-19-00840-CV
Tex. App.Nov 12, 2021Background:
- Beginning in 2013 Netaji had an angry outburst at a Lexus dealership owned by Roberts and was banned; over 2013–2017 he created multiple aliases and posted ~301 items on Facebook targeting Roberts, her daughter, and family organizations.
- Posts accused Roberts and relatives of being child molesters/sex offenders, personalized harassment of her daughter (tracking location, relationships), and urged bullying; direct Facebook messages told Roberts “KARMA IS A BITCH” and similar threats.
- While a temporary protective order was in effect, Netaji sent a group text (admitted at hearing) threatening a mass shooting at the dealership and describing plans/photos of himself "driving on the way."
- Roberts described escalating conduct including two road‑rage confrontations, fear for her family and employees, and hiring private security; Netaji had inpatient mental‑health history and ignored cease‑and‑desist letters.
- Trial court held evidentiary hearings, entered a lifetime Chapter 7A protective order prohibiting contact and gun possession; Netaji appealed raising seven issues including facial and as‑applied constitutional challenges to stalking/harassment statutes, prior‑restraint and Second Amendment claims, and evidentiary complaints.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge to stalking/harassment statutes (vagueness/overbreadth / First Amendment) | Stalking statute (esp. stalking-by-harassment/e‑communications) is vague/overbroad and chills protected speech | Statute targets unprotected harassing conduct, contains a reasonable-person and continuity requirement, and is not fatally overbroad | Rejected: statute not facially unconstitutional; court follows local precedent upholding §42.07(a)(7) and §42.072 limits |
| Prior restraint / Free-speech challenge to protective order | Protective order is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and impermissibly restricts expression (e.g., business complaints) | Court may impose reasonable speech restrictions to protect victims where abusive conduct established (Wagner) | Rejected: protective order is not an invalid prior restraint given finding of stalking and good cause to restrict communication |
| As‑applied challenge & sufficiency (whether conduct constituted stalking) | Repetitive Facebook comments were non‑threatening opinions about a business and insufficient to show stalking | Evidence included repeated targeted posts, direct messages, road‑rage incidents, and explicit threats—sufficient to show stalking under §42.072 | Rejected: legally and factually sufficient evidence supported reasonable grounds to believe Roberts was a stalking victim; statute constitutional as applied |
| Evidentiary/hearsay challenge | Group-text threats were inadmissible hearsay attributed to Netaji by sister‑in‑law | Messages were statements by the party‑opponent (Netaji) and thus not hearsay | Rejected: texts admissible as party admissions |
| Second Amendment challenge to firearm restriction in order | Lifetime prohibition on firearm possession in home infringes Second Amendment and requires strict scrutiny | Respondent found to have committed stalking and thus is not a presumptively law‑abiding citizen; intermediate scrutiny applies and statute furthers substantial governmental interest in victim protection | Rejected: intermediate scrutiny applies; firearm prohibition is constitutional as applied to Netaji |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (invalidated a prior version of harassment/stalking provision and is the primary historical authority plaintiff cites)
- Kinney v. Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2014) (post‑adjudication injunction invalid where it impermissibly restrained defamatory speech)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a handgun in the home for self‑defense)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (facial‑challenge legal standard and de novo review principles)
- Ex parte McDonald, 606 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020) (rejecting overbreadth/vagueness challenges to the electronic‑communications harassment provision)
- Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (upholding a telephone‑harassment statute against constitutional attack)
- Webb v. Schlagal, 530 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017) (discussing preponderance standard for Chapter 7A protective orders)
- Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (factual‑sufficiency review standard guidance)