Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State, 03-15-00270-CV

Background

Appellant Suzanna Eckchum was subject to a lifetime Stalking Protective Order (entered in Comal County) after a hearing initiated by “The State of Texas for the Protection of Hal Ketchum.”
The State’s application invoked the Texas Family Code (Chapter 85) and pleaded family-violence grounds; the trial court entered a lifetime Stalking Protective Order under the criminal-procedure stalking statute (Code Crim. Proc. ch. 7A).
At trial the State’s evidence consisted largely of Hal Ketchum’s uncorroborated testimony alleging threats, encounters at public events, and that a prior 1997 Tennessee restraining order existed; no documentary proof of any Tennessee order was produced.
Appellant contested (1) jurisdiction/pleading defect (that the relief awarded did not conform to the pleaded family-violence application), (2) legal and factual sufficiency to prove stalking (no threats, no directed course of conduct, missing mental-state proof), (3) First Amendment intrusion on photography/reporting, and (4) due-process error from allegedly false testimony about a prior Tennessee order.
Procedural disputes: appellant raised constitutional and sufficiency arguments in post-trial proceedings and argued the trial court curtailed argument; State contends various waivers and preservation failures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State/Hal)	Defendant's Argument (Eckchum)	Held / Disposition (as argued in brief)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a lifetime stalking PO when the pleading sought relief under the Family Code	The State treated the application as stalking-based and contends no defect in pleading prevented relief	Eckchum: pleading invoked Chapter 85 Family Code (no request for §7A stalking relief or lifetime duration); relief granted differs from pleaded relief so order is void for lack of jurisdiction	Eckchum argues the PO is void because the judgment granted relief not invoked by the pleadings (trial court lacked authority to enter lifetime stalking PO)
Legal/factual sufficiency to prove stalking under Tex. Penal Code §42.072 (threat + subjective + objective)	State: conduct (photographs, appearances, gestures) constituted explicit or implicit threats and a course of conduct causing great fear	Eckchum: record lacks any threats, no evidence she knew or should have known Hal perceived threats, no directed scheme toward Hal, mere presence/photography is protected speech	Eckchum argues evidence is legally/factually insufficient—no threats, no specific targeting, thus stalking not proven
First Amendment and photography/reporting activity	State: Eckchum’s photography/appearances placed Hal in great fear, justifying restrictions	Eckchum: taking photographs for publication is communicative speech with an audience and protected; First Amendment does not depend on speaker’s commercial success	Eckchum argues the Order unlawfully infringes protected expressive conduct and the State cites no authority limiting protection by speaker’s earnings
Due process / false testimony about prior Tennessee restraining order	State relies on Hal’s testimony about a prior 1997 restraining order to bolster danger history	Eckchum: Tennessee had no stalking/protective order statute in 1997; Hal’s testimony was false and the State failed to correct or produce documentary evidence, violating due process	Eckchum contends false/unrebutted testimony infected the proceeding and deprived her of a fair hearing
Procedural preservation / waiver / findings / bills of exception	State: Eckchum waived many grounds by not plainly raising them at trial or via formal procedures	Eckchum: raised constitutional and sufficiency concerns in motion for new trial and at hearing; trial court ruled and curtailed argument; preservation rules satisfied and jurisdictional defects are never waived	Eckchum asserts appellate review is preserved; jurisdictional and due-process claims may be raised at any time

Key Cases Cited

Perez v. Briercroft Serv. Corp., 809 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. 1991) (pleadings must give notice of relief sought)
Hubbard v. Lagow, 576 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1979) (trial court’s jurisdiction is invoked by pleadings; judgment beyond pleadings may be void)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (definition of when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
Long v. State, 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (prior stalking statute held unconstitutionally vague; legislature narrowed statute to require threatening conduct)
Ploeger v. State, 189 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (interpretation of stalking statute elements and evidence required to show directed course of conduct)
Clarke v. State, 270 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (clarifies preservation; clear communication to trial court suffices to preserve constitutional claims)
Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State’s failure to correct known false testimony can violate due process)