Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After Gavin Wilbur West ended an approximately 18-month romantic relationship with Amy Michelle Paul, he sought a protective order under Chapter 7B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. West alleged that Paul repeatedly contacted, threatened, harassed, and attempted to blackmail him, and that her conduct made him fear bodily harm and damage to his reputation. At the hearing, the trial court limited its consideration to conduct occurring after the parties’ previous protective order.
West presented testimony, text messages, and police reports concerning Paul’s conduct. Paul denied sending some of the messages and characterized other communications as arguments between two people who loved each other. The trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Paul had committed stalking against a current or former dating partner and imposed a one-year protective order. Paul appealed pro se, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting that she was prevented from presenting evidence and lacked adequate notice of West’s exhibits.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the protective order had expired, the court held that Paul’s appeal remained reviewable under the collateral-consequences exception to mootness because a protective order based on alleged abuse of a dating partner carries significant legal repercussions and social stigma.
The court concluded that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the stalking finding. West’s testimony and the admitted communications permitted the trial court to find that Paul repeatedly sent electronic communications that caused him to fear bodily injury or another offense and to feel harassed. As factfinder, the trial court was entitled to credit West’s testimony and reject Paul’s conflicting account.
The court also rejected Paul’s evidentiary and due-process arguments. The record did not show that she asked to admit defense evidence, and she failed to preserve her notice objection because she told the trial court to admit West’s exhibits to save time. When she withdrew her agreement as to certain audio and video recordings, the trial court sustained her relevance objections and excluded them.
Key Takeaways
- An expired protective order may remain appealable under the collateral-consequences exception because of its continuing legal and reputational effects.
- Repeated electronic communications that cause fear or harassment can support a stalking-based protective order under Texas law.
- A party who agrees to the admission of exhibits generally cannot later challenge their admission without having preserved an objection.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Texas appellate courts give trial judges when evaluating witness credibility in protective-order proceedings. Conflicting testimony will not defeat a stalking finding when the credited evidence shows repeated conduct meeting the statutory standard.
It also underscores that procedural complaints must be preserved at the hearing. Agreeing to admit an opponent’s exhibits or failing to offer defense evidence can foreclose related arguments on appeal.