Zappe v. Bullock, 338 P.3d 242

Petitioner Peter Zappe obtained a civil stalking injunction against respondent Kristie Bullock; appeal from the district court’s grant of the injunction.
Alleged course of conduct centered on two December 2012 events: a "knife incident" at Bullock’s home and a broader "Christmas incident" involving confrontational conduct toward Bullock’s daughter Paige and others.
During the knife incident, Bullock held a kitchen knife near Zappe, warned him against interfering with her daughter’s relationship, and referenced firearms/others who could harm him.
The district court found Zappe credible in large part because many aspects of his account were corroborated by other witnesses; it concluded the conduct met the statutory "course of conduct" requirement for stalking.
Bullock sought to impeach Zappe with a prior third-degree felony theft conviction; the court excluded the conviction under Utah R. Evid. 609(a)(2) and did not admit it under 609(a)(1).
Bullock appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the injunction and that exclusion of the felony for impeachment was erroneous and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bullock)	Defendant's Argument (Zappe)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for civil stalking injunction (course of conduct)	Knife incident testimony came only from Zappe and he was not credible; district court’s findings unreliable	Zappe’s testimony corroborated by other witnesses; district court credited him	Affirmed — district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; evidence supports course of conduct
Admissibility under Utah R. Evid. 609(a)(2) of prior felony conviction for impeachment	Conviction shows dishonesty and bears on credibility; should be admitted	Conviction did not involve dishonest act/false statement; trial court properly excluded it	Affirmed — theft conviction not a crime of dishonesty under 609(a)(2) in these facts
Admissibility under Utah R. Evid. 609(a)(1) (seriousness of offense)	Even if not a dishonesty crime, felony conviction is highly probative of credibility and should have been admitted	Any error in failing to analyze 609(a)(1) was harmless because conviction would not change result	Assuming error, affirm — any error was harmless; no reasonable likelihood of different outcome
Standard of review for admissibility and factual findings	District court erred in weighing credibility and excluding impeachment	District court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference; admissibility reviewed for harmful error	Affirmed — credibility is for trier of fact; admissibility reversed only if harmful error, which is absent

State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624 (Utah 2013) (appellate deference to trial factfindings and resolving conflicts in evidence)
Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (standard for reversing factual findings: clear error)
State v. Bruce, 779 P.2d 646 (Utah 1989) (theft generally not a crime of dishonesty for Rule 609 purposes unless fraud/deceit shown)
State v. Wight, 765 P.2d 12 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (discussing which crimes qualify as dishonest for impeachment)
State v. Morrell, 803 P.2d 292 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (focus of Rule 609(a)(2) on prior acts of dishonesty affecting truthfulness)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (credibility is for the factfinder; harmful-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Betha, 957 P.2d 611 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (appellate review of admissibility gives trial court discretion)