Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate review, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee addressed Erika Jean Schanzenbach's appeal concerning the denial of an order of protection due to alleged stalking by Rowan Skeen. Schanzenbach, a pro-life sidewalk counselor, claimed that Skeen's actions outside an abortion clinic constituted stalking under Tennessee law. Despite video evidence presented during consolidated hearings, the trial court found that the petitioner did not satisfy the statutory definition of stalking and dismissed the petition without prejudice. Schanzenbach appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's denial of a motion to consolidate related cases on appeal. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo, emphasizing the need for factual findings and legal conclusions to support the trial court's decision. Citing the requirement under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605(b) for orders of protection to be predicated on a preponderance of evidence, the appellate court vacated the trial court's decision, remanding the case for further articulation of findings. The costs of the appeal were split equally between the parties, highlighting the appellate court's focus on procedural adequacy for further judicial scrutiny.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition and Application of Stalking and Harassmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the legal definitions of stalking and harassment, focusing on whether the respondent's actions caused the petitioner reasonable fear or emotional distress.
Reasoning: Stalking is defined as a willful course of conduct causing reasonable fear or actual terror in the victim, while harassment involves repeated unconsented contact causing emotional distress.
Order of Protection under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-605(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court evaluated whether the petitioner demonstrated stalking by a preponderance of the evidence to warrant an order of protection.
Reasoning: The primary issue raised by the Petitioner is whether there was sufficient evidence to support allegations of stalking through harassment at the Clinic.
Requirement for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court remanded the case due to the trial court's failure to provide explicit findings of fact and legal conclusions necessary for proper appellate review.
Reasoning: However, the court's final order lacked detailed findings of fact and legal conclusions, which are necessary for appellate review as mandated by Tennessee law.
Standard of Review for Appeals in Tennesseesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was reviewed de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness for the trial court's findings of fact unless rebutted.
Reasoning: The appeal is reviewed de novo on the record, maintaining a presumption of correctness for findings of fact unless rebutted.