Sean Thompson v. Frank Venturella
24-AP-364
| Vt. | Jun 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Sean Thompson sought an anti-stalking order against defendant Frank Venturella in October 2024.
- The Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Civil Division, issued a temporary protective order and set the matter for a hearing.
- Both parties represented themselves at the evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court found that Venturella purposefully threatened Thompson with physical harm multiple times, causing Thompson fear for his safety.
- The court issued a final anti-stalking order against Venturella; Venturella appealed this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of Proof | Preponderance of evidence was appropriate. | Clear and convincing evidence should apply under 15 V.S.A. § 1151. | Court applied the correct preponderance standard. |
| Validity of Plaintiff's Evidence | Evidence was submitted properly and timely. | Plaintiff failed to submit evidence on time, causing prejudice/violating due process. | Defense argument inadequately briefed; not addressed. |
| Reliability/Authentication of Evidence | Evidence was reliable and authenticated. | Evidence/testimony was unreliable/unauthenticated, violating due process. | Argument inadequately briefed; not addressed. |
| Newly Discovered Evidence | N/A | New evidence requires reconsideration of final order. | Not preserved below; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294 (1988) (appellant must demonstrate lower court error; court will not search record for error)
- Beatty v. Keough, 217 Vt. 134 (2022) (standard for reviewing trial court's findings and conclusions in anti-stalking orders)
- Zorn v. Smith, 189 Vt. 219 (2011) (self-represented litigants are bound by procedural rules)
- Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc., 192 Vt. 343 (2012) (briefing standards for self-represented litigants)