217 N.C. App. 558
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Judy St. John filed civil no-contact complaints against Tammy and Vicky Brantley; ex parte orders issued December 10, 2010 restraining contact.
- A February 2011 hearing produced one-year no-contact orders against both Defendants, nunc pro tunc to February 16, 2011.
- Plaintiff alleged harassment and intimidation related to Tammy and Vicky’s conduct while Plaintiff planned to testify in Tammy’s criminal case.
- The trial court found that Defendants’ conduct amounted to unlawful conduct and intimidation of a witness in a pending criminal case.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of facts, statutory basis, and admissibility of certain evidence underpinning the orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of pre-December 10 findings | Findings before December 10 were relevant to anticipated testimony. | Pre-December 10 findings were irrelevant to harassment for purposes of the orders. | Findings tying to witness intimidation were relevant and properly considered. |
| Unlawful conduct requirement under 50C-5(a) | Harassment causing fear or distress constitutes unlawful conduct. | No evidence of criminal conduct against Plaintiff is required for no-contact orders. | Harassment under 50C-1(6) (stalking) supports orders even without a crime against plaintiff. |
| Specific intent under 50C-1(6) | Intent to intimidate a witness satisfies the statute. | No explicit intent findings; Ramsey requires specific intent tied to fear or distress. | Findings showing intimidation of a witness satisfy the specific intent requirement. |
| Statutory basis for civil no-contact orders | Unlawful conduct defined in 50C encompasses witness intimidation. | Intimidation of a witness is not clearly within the listed categories. | Chapter 50C’s definitions include stalking/harassment, encompassing witness intimidation. |
| Admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) | Evidence of Tammy’s assault explains motive and is admissible for context. | Evidence should be excluded as improper 404(b) character evidence. | Evidence was admissible for motive/intent; findings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Harman, 191 N.C.App. 146 (2008) (specific-intent requirement for no-contact orders)
- S. Bldg. Maint. v. Osborne, 127 N.C.App. 327 (1997) (courts bind findings supported by competent evidence)