Full text
M. B. v. Clark
— 840 —
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 June 6, affirmed July 6, petition for review denied October 5, 2023 (371 Or 476)
M. B., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Dennis CLARK, Respondent-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 22PO07268; A179650
Timothy Barnack, Judge. Jason E. Thompson and Thompson Law, LLC, filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 326 Or App 840 (2023) 841
KAMINS, J. Respondent appeals from the entry of a sexual abuse protective order (SAPO) against him pursuant to ORS 163.760 to 163.777. On appeal, respondent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory requirement that petitioner’s subjective fear was objectively reasonable. ORS 163.763(2)(b)(A). Petitioner does not appear on appeal. We affirm. Absent de novo review, which respondent does not seek, when reviewing a SAPO, we are “bound by the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by any evi- dence in the record, and we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for errors of law.” C. J. v. Flores, 317 Or App 488, 489, 505 P3d 500, rev den, 369 Or 855 (2022) (internal quo- tation marks omitted). To obtain a SAPO, petitioner was required to prove that respondent subjected her to sexual abuse and that petitioner reasonably feared for her physical safety. ORS 163.763(2)(b). The record was legally sufficient to permit the trial court to conclude that respondent sexually abused peti- tioner and that she reasonably feared for her safety. The trial court found petitioner’s testimony to be credible, and explicitly found the testimony of respondent’s witness not to be credible. In her testimony, petitioner described the eve- ning that respondent, her boss at the time, followed her into a closet and shut the door, forcibly kissed her while reach- ing under her clothes to touch her vagina, and grabbed her breasts and buttocks before she managed to shove him off and escape. Petitioner further testified that respondent vis- its her new workplace, and that she recently went to a fair where respondent “followed her around” and “wouldn’t stop staring” at her. Based on that evidence, the court’s conclu- sion that petitioner’s fear was objectively reasonable was not in error. Affirmed.