Roper v. Shovan
302 P.3d 483
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Shovan appeals a district court’s civil stalking injunction against him after two alleged stalking incidents arising during custodial exchanges.
- The district court concluded Shovan intentionally engaged in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for safety or suffer emotional distress, satisfying Utah’s stalking statute.
- The divorce proceedings between Shovan and Roper were bifurcated and ongoing, with no final custody or parent-time order entered at the time of the injunction.
- The district court limited evidence to two specific incidents and instructed the parties to pursue any custody or parent-time modifications in the ongoing divorce case.
- Shovan argued additional emails and communications should have been admitted, but the court did not allow undisclosed documents; Shovan challenged possible bias and credibility determinations.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed, holding the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and supported issuing the stalking injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly found stalking under Utah law | Shovan contends the findings support a valid stalking injunction. | Roper asserts the conduct met the statute’s elements and justifies the injunction. | Yes; findings support the injunction. |
| Whether Roper’s fear was properly considered under the reasonable person standard | Shovan challenges the use of fear of the victim as the standard. | Roper’s reaction as a reasonable person in her circumstances is proper. | Yes; the court appropriately applied the reasonable person standard. |
| Whether the district court erred by limiting evidence to two incidents | Shovan argues additional evidence should have been admitted. | Court properly limited to relevant incidents and allowed related evidence. | No; court did not err; limitations were proper. |
| Whether appellate review may address custody/parent-time relief given ongoing divorce | Shovan seeks modification of parent-time through the injunction on appeal. | Such relief must be pursued in the divorce proceedings. | Yes; we lack jurisdiction to modify parent-time and affirm the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coombs v. Dietrich, 253 P.3d 1121 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (sets forth elements of civil stalking injunctions under Utah law)
- ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Mattson, 943 P.2d 247 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (clearly articulates standard for reviewing findings of fact)
- RJW Media, Inc. v. CIT Grp./Consumer Fin., Inc., 202 P.3d 291 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (first-time-issue-on-appeal rule for ordinary evidentiary challenges)
- Salt Lake City v. Hughes, 253 P.3d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (credibility determinations reserved to trial court)