Vinson v. Adams, ED 86089.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation188 S.W.3d 461
Docket NumberNo. ED 86089.,ED 86089.
PartiesRay VINSON, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Joe ADAMS, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Decision Date11 April 2006
188 S.W.3d 461
Ray VINSON, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
v.
Joe ADAMS, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
No. ED 86089.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
April 11, 2006.

Page 462

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 463

Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Saint Louis, MO, for respondent/cross-appellant.

Michael A. Gross, St. Louis, MO, for appellant/cross-respondent.

OPINION

GLENN A. NORTON, Chief Judge.


Joe Adams appeals the judgment entering a full order of protection against him under the Adult Abuse Act upon allegations that he stalked Ray Vinson. Vinson cross-appeals, challenging that part of the order prohibiting Adams from being within ten feet of him. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Vinson and his wife have been in litigation to dissolve their marriage.1 Vinson's wife hired Adams to provide security and to keep Vinson under observation. Thereafter, Vinson filed a petition under the Adult Abuse Act alleging that Adams was stalking him.

In the petition, Vinson alleged that Adams had accosted him while he was conducting business at American Equity Mortgage and threatened "I'll take you apart you understand that." Ownership of American Equity Mortgage is an issue in the Vinsons' dissolution, and, under a pendente lite ("PDL") judgment, Vinson is allowed access to the business but is prohibited from contact with his wife while on the premises. At the hearing on his stalking petition, Vinson testified that one day while at American Equity Mortgage for a meeting, Adams followed him down a hallway:

Mr. Adams was on my heels, and I mean within 15 inches of my back. . . . I get to the end of the hall, turn left. I drop—I had a file folder in my hand. I dropped some papers. As I reached down to get those papers, just as I turned to my right to get those papers from the floor, Mr. Adams practically ran over the top of me and we made contact—his shins and knees and arms were all over the top of me. He was within 15 inches of me, I'm guessing. It was very, very, very, very close. Too close to stop, certainly, when I stopped. Which spontaneously you would just reach down to pick those papers up. And that's what I did, and he practically ran over the top of me.

Vinson testified that Adams said several things when this happened:

One was, "You're out of your league pal". . . "I will cut you up," or something like that. I mean some threatening things, I think that we have documented. But it was very threatening and certainly told me, in no uncertain terms, that I should certainly not get near him or be around there.

Adams testified that he stopped when he saw Vinson drop the papers an arm-length away and was just standing there when Vinson shoved into him. He told Vinson "don't push your luck," "don't fuck with me" and "we're not in the same league now." Adams admitted that he told Vinson that he would "take him apart," but denied that he ever used the word "cut." He did not feel these were threats, just attempts to keep Vinson from being aggressive.

Page 464

An employee of American Equity Mortgage testified that she saw Vinson stop and push Adams and then it appeared they were "having words."

Vinson also claimed in his petition that, while at the county court house, Adams said "I'm still gonna get you." At the hearing, Vinson testified that as Adams was leaving the courtroom, "he turned to me and said, `I'm going to get you,' or `I'm going to kill you,' or muttered something," while pointing his finger. Adams testified that he said "That's okay, Ray. I got you anyway. I got you." He denied saying "I'm going to get you."

Vinson alleged in the petition that, before the incident at American Equity Mortgage, Adams had inquired into purchasing a machine gun. At the hearing, Vinson testified that he was also aware that this would not have been the first gun that Adams had ever owned. Vinson also alleged that he was afraid Adams would cause him immediate severe physical harm and testified at the hearing that Adams's actions put him in fear.

The court entered a full order of protection, in which Adams was ordered not to "stalk, or disturb the peace of [Vinson] wherever [Vinson] may be and not be within ten feet of [Vinson]." On appeal, Adams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he stalked Vinson, and Vinson challenges the ten-foot restriction in the order.2

II. DISCUSSION

In this court-tried case, we will sustain the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Wallace v. Van Pelt, 969 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). "Substantial evidence is competent evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably decide the case." Wallace, 969 S.W.2d at 382. We defer to the trial court's determinations regarding credibility and view all facts and any inferences therefrom favorably to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Skovira v. Talley, SD 31629.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 15, 2012
    ...inferences in a light most favorable to the judgment. C.B. v. J.B., 356 S.W.3d 790, 793 (Mo.App.2011); [369 S.W.3d 782]Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461, 464 (Mo.App.2006). “The trial judge is in the best position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the existence of any......
  • Dennis v. Henley
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 29, 2010
    ...allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 455.040.1; Clark v. Wuebbeling, 217 S.W.3d 352, 354 (Mo.App.2007); Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461, 464-65 314 S.W.3d 790 "Because there is real harm that can result in abusing the Adult Abuse Act and its provisions, including the stigma ......
  • Perren v. Perren, SD 33817
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 11, 2015
    ...all facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the judgment. C.B. v. J.B., 356 S.W.3d 790, 793 (Mo.App.2011) ; Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461, 464 (Mo.App.2006). "The trial judge is in the best position to gauge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the existence of any ......
  • K.C. v. Chapline
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 21, 2021
    ...renewed again on February 24, 2021, and is effective until February 23, 2022. Thus, Chapline's appeal is not moot. See Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461, 464 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (appeal of original protective order was not moot even though the order's original effective date had passed; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT