Nemona Febonio v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-08-00518-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 25, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellant Nemona Febonio contests a protective order issued against her under Title IV of the Texas Family Code, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that domestic violence occurred or that it was likely to reoccur. The court affirms the trial court's order. 

During the protective order hearing, Fawn Li testified about their 13-year relationship, detailing harassment and aggressive behavior from Febonio following their separation in October 2007. Li described multiple instances of violence, including being choked by Febonio in the mid-1990s and recent incidents of property destruction, such as Febonio kicking a car windshield while Li was driving. One alarming incident involved Febonio making stabbing motions with a statue while Li was in bed. Li's fear escalated to the point where she packed a bag to escape if necessary. 

Li recounted a specific October 2007 incident where Febonio choked her during an argument, which prompted her to leave. Witness testimony from a friend corroborated that Febonio had previously slammed a car door on Li during a dispute. Since their breakup, Febonio allegedly continued to contact Li with threats and harassment. 

Febonio admitted to grabbing Li during the October incident but downplayed its severity, claiming it was out of sadness. She acknowledged throwing the statue but contended it was an emotional reaction rather than an act of aggression. Additionally, Febonio denied intentionally trying to locate Li but mentioned she had sent Li chocolates after learning her whereabouts by accident.

At the hearing's conclusion, the trial court determined that Febonio committed family violence and that future occurrences were likely. A protective order was issued, effective until May 16, 2010, prohibiting contact between Febonio and Li or her family, and requiring Febonio to undergo an alcohol and drug evaluation. Febonio's motion for a new trial was automatically overruled, leading to this appeal. Febonio contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's findings of past and future family violence. Legal sufficiency is assessed by evaluating the evidence in favor of the prevailing party, identifying any absence of critical facts, or determining if evidence is merely speculative or conclusively contradictory. Factual sufficiency considers all evidence, upholding findings unless they are manifestly unjust. In her appeal, Febonio argues that the evidence does not support the finding of family violence, citing the lack of reported incidents, absence of written cease and desist notifications, and no documented injuries. However, the statute does not require a police report or cease and desist notice for establishing family violence, which includes acts of dating violence intended to cause harm or induce fear.

The statute does not necessitate that a perpetrator's actions cause actual physical harm or bodily injury, provided there was an intention to inflict such harm. Acknowledging all inferences in favor of the trial court's finding of family violence, Li's testimony regarding Febonio's attempts to choke her constitutes sufficient evidence of intent to cause physical harm or assault. Li's expressions of feeling threatened by Febonio further reinforce the trial court's conclusion. The court, as the sole judge of witness credibility, was justified in accepting Li's account, and the evidence does not appear inadequate or manifestly unjust. Regarding the future likelihood of family violence, Febonio acknowledges evidence of harassment but contends it does not indicate a high probability of future violence. However, the trial court could reasonably infer from the testimonies that Febonio's hostile behavior posed a credible threat of imminent harm likely to reoccur, especially given her ongoing attempts to contact Li and her family. The findings of the trial court are supported by sufficient evidence, leading to the affirmation of the protective order.