Patterson v. Pilot
| Decision Date | 28 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 32266.,SD 32266. |
| Citation | 399 S.W.3d 889 |
| Parties | Mark A. PATTERSON, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Ronnie PILOT, Respondent/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark C. Fels, of Springfield, MO, for Appellant.
Respondent Acting Pro Se.
Ronnie Pilot (“Pilot”) appeals from a judgment granting Mark A. Patterson (“Patterson”) 1 a full order of protection against Pilot, pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, after a bench trial. Pilot contends there was insufficient evidence to establish all the elements of “stalking” as defined in section 455.010–.090 2 to support the trial court's issuance of a full order of protection. We disagree and affirm.
Patterson, along with his parents, owned real estate in Greene County just south of Strafford, Missouri. Dave Murdaugh (“Murdaugh”) owned the land “around” Patterson, including 67 acres that was part of the Patterson “homestead farm,” which Patterson had to sell as part of a divorce settlement. Patterson knew Pilot and Larry Fultz (“Fultz”) 3 because they were both employed by Murdaugh.
On June 2, 2011, Patterson filed an “Adult Abuse Ex Parte Petition for Order of Protection” (“Petition”) against Pilot citing numerous incidents of harassment and stalking by Pilot from February 2011 through May 20, 2011. 4 In his pre-printed Petition, Patterson selected the pre-printed options in boxes that alleged Pilot “knowingly and intentionally ... stalked me [,] harassed me[,] followed me from place to place[,] placed or attempted to place me in apprehension of immediate physical harm[, and] threatened to do any of the above[.]” 5 The pre-printed Petition then provided: “BY THE FOLLOWING ACT(S): (STATE THE MOST RECENT DATE(S) OF EACH ACT AND DESCRIBE) [.]” In response, Patterson described the following specific acts in his Petition:
6–1–11—Trespass on my place with his step dad Larry Kutz @ Rear of My House & Taking Photo's
5–20–11 Drove his Bob cat loader at my Truck as to (Ram Me In the Side)
2–16–11 Cut Trees on my property & has told me he would keep up the Vandalism to my place & me (Ronnie knocked off my mailbox) 6
Patterson also alleged in the Petition that he was afraid of Pilot and there was an “immediate and present danger of abuse or stalking” because: 7 (Underscore in original). Patterson requested the court, pursuant to section 455.010–.085, issue an ex parte order of protection restraining Pilot from “abusing, threatening to abuse, molesting or disturbing the peace of [Patterson] wherever [Patterson] may be found.”
The court denied Patterson ex parte relief and set a hearing on the full order of protection for June 16, 2011, which was continued several times until August 9, 2012.8 Viewed most favorably to the judgment, the testimony and evidence revealed the following facts.
On August 9, 2012,9 Patterson affirmed he alleged in his Petition that Pilot stalked him, harassed him, followed him from place to place, and attempted to cause him physical harm. The incidents involving Pilot and Patterson had been ongoing for about three years. Patterson testified to numerous incidents of Pilot trespassing on his property, blocking him in his driveway with a bobcat loader or his body so that Patterson could not leave, following him up and down his 35–foot driveway, and piling rocks and limbs across his driveway to block it. As a result of these acts, law enforcement was called on several occasions.
Patterson testified being videotaped and photographed was a regular, every day occurrence and that Pilot was one of those videotaping or photographing him. He stated Pilot, and others, would come to his property line and stand there for hours videotaping him whenever he left his house. Patterson testified that Pilot, Fultz, and others had videotaped and photographed him 50 to 75 times on and off his own property.
As to specific dates of the alleged incidents, Patterson testified Pilot drove a bobcat loader at his truck on May 20, 2011; Pilot blocked his driveway on May 31, 2011; on June 1, 2011, Pilot and Fultz came up to his house on a 4–wheeler, “30 foot on my place,” and took photos of, and messed with his tractor; and 2 1/2 years ago, threw barbwire on his truck. Patterson was questioned regarding the last significant incident, which occurred on June 27, 2012.10
Patterson testified that on June 27, 2012, he left his house to go to the hospital to stay with his mother and as he was coming down his drive, “there was [sic] about four or five people sitting on the edge of my driveway, in my driveway.” Rocks and limbs had been piled “all the way across the drive” so Patterson could not get out of his driveway. When Patterson attempted to go around the debris, Pilot and Fultz blocked his truck and were “[l]iterally standing in front of me, in front of my truck, behind my truck” keeping him from going anywhere for 15–20 minutes. Patterson “took photos of the rocks they had piled in my driveway[,]” because “[he] knew that they were getting ready to do more damage to the drive.” Patterson stated he was finally able to leave and went down to his parents' house and called 911. He then went back to his driveway to wait for an officer and noticed more rocks had been “piled in the road,” and took more photographs. Pilot also “started scooping up my driveway with a bobcat and taking my gravel out and dumping it on Murdaugh's place.” Pilot then “raised it up, came back, and come [sic] straight at my truck, and stopped maybe about a foot away from the side of my truck with a bucket raised at my head height.” Patterson was probably about three or four feet back when Pilot raised up the bucket and came at him real fast and then “stopped real quick.”
The photographs Patterson took of the rocks piled in his driveway, of Pilot and Fultz, and of the confrontation on June 27, were entered into evidence.
When asked if the June 27, 2012 incident scared him, Patterson answered, “Yeah.” Specifically, Patterson testified that he was afraid of Pilot 11 because his health was not good, and they have “came [sic] at [him] with tractors, frame loaders, with bobcats, with dozers ... a 150,000–pound dozer or ... a 60,000–pound bobcat, and you are in a truck or can't walk.” In addition, Fultz made a comment “that he would kill me.” Patterson testified that Pilot “has come at me,” threatened him, and told him they were going to make Patterson's “life miserable.” Pilot told Patterson the reason for all of the harassment was because Patterson was giving Murdaugh a “hard time” over an easement.12 According to Patterson, ninety percent of the altercations happened on the “private driveway easement that goes back and forth to [his] house.” 13
On cross-examination, Patterson admitted he had no “independent recollection of dates[,]” but could refresh his recollection by viewing photographs he had taken.
Fultz testified and admitted on cross-examination that he and Pilot had been photographing and videotaping Patterson upon Murdaugh's instructions since early 2011 because Patterson had made allegations that they were stalking and harassing him.
Pilot testified as well and generally denied harassing, stalking, threatening or placing Patterson in “fear of immediate physical harm.” He testified the only contact he had with Patterson was when he “comes out to where we are,” and as for the trespass allegations, Pilot testified they were on Murdaugh's property photographing Patterson's tractor due to some damage to Murdaugh's hayfield. Pilot denied he had ever driven his bobcat loader at Patterson's truck or cut any trees on Patterson's property, and that any trees cut, were on Murdaugh's side of the easement. Pilot denied threatening Patterson or ever telling Patterson that the vandalism and harassment were because Murdaugh did not like him.
Pilot testified as to the June 27, 2012 incident, and indicated he had videotape and pictures clearly showing Patterson blocking their tractor with his truck, driving up and down the driveway, and turning around and coming back. The trial court partially viewed the video and indicated it would accept Pilot's testimony that there were pictures showing this activity, but also made the following comments:
THE COURT: You know, I am not cutting anybody off. I don't want you to lose sight of the fact this is about an order of protection.
....
THE COURT: And some of that would be much more interesting when and perhaps if—maybe it's when—[Fultz] and [Pilot] seek an order of protection against [Patterson]. That may be next. I probably expect that's coming next.
....
THE COURT: But that's not the point today.
Pilot further testified he did not block Patterson from the driveway on June 27, 2012, rather Patterson tried to block Pilot and Fultz from crossing.
On cross-examination, Pilot was asked by Patterson's counsel, “[W]ould you be in agreement to staying away from my client?” 14 At that point, the trial court interjected and asked if Patterson was “willing to dismiss his claim for an order of protection with that agreement?” A discussion was held off the record. The following colloquy then took place on the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v. Minehart
...Dennis v. Henley, 314 S.W.3d 786, 790 (Mo.App.S.D.2010); Skovira v. Talley, 369 S.W.3d 780, 781 (Mo.App.S.D.2012); Patterson v. Pilot, 399 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Mo.App.S.D.2013). Due to this “real harm[,] ... trial courts must exercise great care to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to supp......
-
Main v. Fariss
...relied on containing multiple claims of error violates Rule 84.04(d) and ordinarily is subject to dismissal. Patterson v. Pilot , 399 S.W.3d 889, 897 n.15 (Mo. App. 2013). Under the circumstances presented here, however, we exercise our discretion to review the point ex gratia and dispose o......
-
N.C. v. Y.Q.L.
...his assertion that they had been together in a previous life, and his reference to her as his "future wife." See Patterson v. Pilot , 399 S.W.3d 889, 900 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (holding the trial court could reasonably conclude based upon petitioner's testimony that appellant's conduct caused......
-
Lawyer v. Fino
...evidence, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it does not erroneously declare or apply the law.” Patterson v. Pilot, 399 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Mo.App.S.D.2013). The facts and inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. However, “[i]t is import......