State for Protection of P. B. v. v. T., 575 S.W.3d 921

The State sought a permanent protective order under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 7A on behalf of P.B. against her ex-boyfriend V.T., alleging sexual assault/abuse, stalking, or trafficking; a temporary order issued and a hearing was set.
P.B.'s affidavit (not admitted at trial) alleged naked photos/videos taken by V.T., threats to post them to force sex, impersonation/pay-post on Craigslist, and apologetic texts from V.T.
At the hearing Detective Rebekah Coons testified about investigating an online-impersonation post on Craigslist and about texts she believed came from V.T.; she submitted the impersonation case to the district attorney but gave no details showing charges or multiple incidents.
V.T. appeared and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege repeatedly in response to every substantive question; the court warned V.T. that invocation could be used against him in the civil/protective-order context.
The district court denied the permanent protective order, finding the evidence (Coons’s limited testimony and V.T.’s silence) insufficient to show sexual assault or stalking and declining to draw adverse inferences beyond V.T.’s identity/relationship with P.B.
The State appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not drawing adverse inferences from V.T.’s Fifth Amendment invocations and that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to deny relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (V.T.)	Held
Whether the court was required to draw adverse inferences from V.T.'s Fifth Amendment invocations	The court should infer guilt because an innocent person would have denied the allegations	Invoking the Fifth is permissible in civil proceedings and drawing inferences is discretionary	Not required to draw adverse inferences beyond identity/relationship; no abuse of discretion
Whether the evidence legally or factually supported issuance of a Chapter 7A permanent protective order (stalking or sexual assault)	State contends evidence (Coons’s testimony + V.T.'s silence) suffices to establish reasonable grounds for a protective order	V.T. asserts privilege and absence of probative evidence on required elements	Evidence insufficient: Coons only tied V.T. to a single online-impersonation incident (not a Chapter 7A listed offense or multiple incidents); State failed to prove stalking or sexual assault

Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (criminal defendant’s silence cannot be used to infer guilt)
Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. 1995) (Fifth Amendment may be asserted in civil trials; adverse inferences permitted in civil context)
Wilz v. Flournoy, 228 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. 2007) (factfinder in civil case may draw negative inferences from Fifth Amendment invocations)
Webb v. Maldonado, 331 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (invocation alone, without probative evidence, yields mere suspicion not admissible basis for relief)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (legal-sufficiency standard when appellant bears burden)
Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. 2001) (limited evidentiary value of Fifth Amendment invocation; suspicion and conjecture are not evidence)