S. P. S. v. Jensen

• Decision Date: 23 November 2022
• Docket Number: A177060
• Citation: 322 Or.App. 784
• Parties: S. P. S., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Curtis Lee JENSEN, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

322 Or.App. 784

S. P. S., Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Curtis Lee JENSEN, Respondent-Appellant.

A177060

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 23, 2022

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted September 2, 2022

Yamhill County Circuit Court 21SK01333; A177060 Jennifer K. Chapman, Judge.

Curtis L. Jensen fled the brief pro se.

No appearance for respondent.

Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge.

[322 Or.App. 785]

1

JAMES, P. J.

Respondent appeals a judgment concerning a stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866(1). On appeal, respondent requests de novo review.^[1] Because he is challenging legal conclusions that do not require de novo review of the evidence and because this case is not "exceptional" for purposes of ORAP 5.40(8Xc), we decline to exercise that discretion, and affirm.

Absent de novo review, when the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an SPO under ORS 30.866 is challenged on appeal, "we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record is legally sufficient to permit that outcome." King v. W. T. K, 276 Or.App. 533, 537, 369 P.3d 1181 (2016). We defer to the trial court's implicit and explicit credibility determinations. Habrat v. Milligan, 208 Or.App. 229, 231, 145 P.3d 180 (2006). That is especially true "where credibility based on demeanor is a crucial factor in making an appraisal of the evidence." Jimenez v. Flores, 317 Or.App. 488, 492, 505 P.3d 500, rev den, 369 Or. 855 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ORS 30.866 authorizes a court to issue a stalking protective order against a person if (1) the person "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with the petitioner or a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the petitioner," (2) the other person's alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable, and (3) the unwanted contacts caused the other person "reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the petitioner or a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household." Expressive contacts are held to a higher standard before qualifying as contacts under ORS 30.866. State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294, 303, 977 P.2d 379 (1999). However,...