Steele v. Lyon
2015 Ark. App. 251
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- John Lyon petitioned for a two-year protective order under the Domestic Abuse Act after a post-breakup altercation at a parade and alleged continued harassing and threatening text messages from Jennifer Steele.
- Lyon obtained an ex parte order (June 2013); final protective order entered September 10, 2013. Steele appealed.
- Key contested evidence: a multi-page exhibit of text-message screenshots (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) and testimony about who authored certain messages.
- Steele argued (on appeal) the court erred by allowing Lyon to testify (he was not listed in discovery), by admitting the text-message exhibit (untimely, incomplete, unauthenticated, not original), and that the Domestic Abuse Act did not apply because other remedies existed and the parties did not cohabit.
- Trial court credited Lyon and a witness who corroborated threats and stalking-like conduct; court found Steele’s conduct supported domestic abuse (fear of imminent harm) and entered the protection order. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steele) | Defendant's Argument (Lyon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner (Lyon) could testify despite not being listed as a discovery witness | Lyon’s testimony was a surprise and should have been excluded for discovery violation | As petitioner and party, Lyon’s testimony was foreseeable and necessary to prosecute his petition | Court: No abuse of discretion; Lyon’s testimony was not a surprise |
| Whether the Domestic Abuse Act applied | Act was inapplicable because other remedies (police report) existed and parties did not cohabit; statute not intended for facts here | Act covers past/present dating relationships; availability of other remedies does not bar relief under Act | Court: Act applies; dating relationship fits statutory definition; other remedies don’t preclude protection order |
| Admissibility of text-message exhibit (timeliness, completeness, originality) | Exhibit was untimely, incomplete, not original, and prejudicial | Exhibit was properly authenticated and screenshots qualify as "original" under Ark. R. Evid. 1001(3) | Court: No abuse of discretion admitting screenshots; authentication sufficed |
| Authentication and admission of specific text messages; sufficiency of evidence for protective order | Messages not properly authenticated; without them evidence insufficient to support order | Messages, witness testimony, and incident at parade showed harassment/threats; credibility for trial court to weigh | Court: Issues not preserved or inadequately briefed; overall evidence sufficient; order not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Yankaway v. State, 366 Ark. 18 (standard that appellate courts will not consider arguments unsupported by authority)
- Claver v. Wilbur, 102 Ark. App. 53 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Pablo v. Crowder, 95 Ark. App. 268 (dating relationships fall within Domestic Abuse Act definition)
- Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368 (need to authenticate text messages; proponent must provide corroborating evidence of authorship)
- Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22 (appellate review of evidentiary rulings requires showing of prejudice)