FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Jul y 2, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 23A 0 27 9

. CA LH OUN v

. H A RRELL.

B A R N E S , Presid ing J u d ge.

M ario n D

. Calho u n ap p eals f ro m a Stalk ing Th r e e Year Pro tec tiv e Ord er

entered against her and in fav o r o f Carlo tta H arrell. Calho u n co ntend s that her

c o nd u c t at issu e

– po s ting to Fac ebo o k co mments relating t o H arrell, the Chair o f the

H enry Co u nty B o ard o f Co mmissio ners

– a m o unted to engagi n g i n c o nstitu tio nally

p ro tec ted p o li tic al sp eec h and w as, at a ny rate, insu f f ic ient to au tho riz e the o rd er. 1

B e c a u se w e find merit in Calho u n’ s argu ment that the ev id enc e w as insu f fic ient, w e

rev erse.

1 Calho u n ap pealed to this Co u rt, and w e t ransf erred the c ase to o u r Su p reme Co u rt on the basis that Calho u n’ s argu ments raised a c o nstitu tio nal qu e stio n w ithin that Co urt’ s e xc lu s iv e a p p ellate j u risd ic tio n. The Su p reme Co u rt transf erred the c ase bac k to this Co u rt, d etermining that this c a se d o es no t f all w ithin that sc o p e.A s bac k gro u nd , it is u nd isp u t e d th a t Harrell p ro c u red in 2021 a o ne- year

stalk ing p ro tec tiv e o rd e r against Calho u n. 2 The rec o r d s ho ws t hat t he fo llo w ing year,

in M ay 2022, H arrell r etu rned t o c o u rt and f iled , exp ressly p u rsu ant to OCGA § 1 6

- 5-

9 4 3 and 1 9

- 1 3- 4, 4 the p etitio n that led to the no w c o nt e s t e d three- year p ro tec tiv e o rd er.

I n su pp ort o f that p etitio n, H arrell sw o re, “ Calho un has co ntinu ed to m ak e p o sting[s]

o n s o c ial me d i a that hav e an u nd erto ne o f v io lenc e

. . . . I c o ntinu e to be in c o nstant

f ear o f my lif

e and saf ety b ec au se o f the c o nstant stalk ing o f M s. Calho u n v i a s o c i al

med ia. ”

2 The o ne- year p ro tec t iv e o rd e r has no t been mad e a p art o f the ap p ellate

rec o rd

.

3 OCGA § 1 6

- 5

- 9 4 p ro v i d e s t h a t “ [ a ] p erso n who is no t a mino r w ho alleges stalk ing by ano ther p erso n m ay seek a restraining o r d er b y f iling a petitio n alleging

c o nd u c t c o nstitu ting s talk ing as d ef ined in Co d e Sec tio n 1 6

- 5- 9 0. ” OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 94 (a). The statu te p ro vid es f u rther that “ [t]he c o u r t may grant a p ro tec tiv e o rd er

. . . to bring abo u t a c essatio n o f c o nd u c t c o nstitu ting stalk ing. ” OCGA § 1 6 -5- 94 (d ).

4 OCGA § 1 9

- 1 3- 4 p ro v id es f or the granting o f p ro tec t iv e ord ers “ t o bring abo u t

a c essatio n o f ac t s o f f

amily v io lenc e. ” OCGA § 1 9

- 1 3- 4 (a). W hile there w as no allegatio n no r any ev id enc e that Calho u n and H arrell were members of the same f amily, OCGA § 1 6 -5- 9 4 (e) states that d esignated su b sec tio ns o f “ 19

- 1 3- 4

. . . relating
to family v io lenc e p etitio ns, shall ap p ly to p etitio ns file d p u rsu ant t o this Co d e
sec tio n[. ]”

2On J u ne 27 , 2022, the trial c o u r t co n v e n e d a hearing. T he j u d ge d elineated f ro m

the benc h that she w as s p ec if ic ally interested in “ w hat’ s hap p ened betw een [the time

the o ne- year p r o tec tiv e o rd er had issu ed ] and no w. ”

H arrell began he r c a s e b y c alling Calho u n to the stand

. Du ring su c h c ro ssexaminatio n, Calho u n desc ribed herself as a B l a c k c o m mu nity ac tiv ist; and she

ad mitted that she had p o sted to Fac e bo o k a series o f c o mments a bo u t H a rrell, w ho is

also B lac k

. I n resp onse t o v ario u s qu e s tio ns, Calho u n ad mitted t hat in a Febru ary

2022 p ost, she ca l l e d H arrell and ano ther ind iv id u al “ snak es” ; 5 that in a dif f erent

Febru ary 2022 p o st, she c alled H a r rell a nd ano ther ind iv id ual “ MFERS” w ho had

5 The exhibit asso c iated w ith this testimo ny s h o w e d that Calho u n’ s p ost inc lu d ed : A real c ommu nity a c tiv ist mak es no ise in their c o m mu nity M OST OF TH E T I M E W H I L E S T A N D I N G A LON E. I ’ M TH A T B LA CK QUEEN

. . . I hav e a right to my v o ic e my o pinio n and the right to sp eak f reely abo u t issu e s that co nc ern m e and my co mmu nity. H enry Co u nty Geo r gia o u r go v ernment is being mo no p o liz e f or a f ew blac k d emo c rats aid in g a n d a b etting white f o lk s to su p p ress o u r v o tes and o u r fo rw ard p ro gress. W ith p ho to grap hs ap p arently d e p ic ting H arrell and other ind iv id u als, Calho u n’ s Fac ebo ok po s t c o ntinu ed : “ T H ESE 2 SM I L I N G B LA CK FA CES TELL LI ES, TH EY A RE W ORK I N G TO SUPPRESS OUR V OTES WI TH A REPUB LI CON J UST SO TH EY CA N STA Y I N POW ER. They a re w illing to hav e me j ailed o n f alse stalk ing c harges bec u z I ’ m exp o sing them f o r SN A K E S t h at a re. T hey kno w w here I liv e, c o me get me, im no t ru nning no r hid ing. ”

3c o me f

ro m “ traito ro u s a nc esto rs” ; 6 that in ano ther Febru ary 2022 p o st, sh e talk ed

abo u t H arrell’ s “blo o d line” ; 7 that in o ther Febru ary 2022 po sts, she c o mment e d

abo u t B lac k p o litic ians in H enry Co u nty; 8 t hat in a Marc h 2022 po st, she ref erred to

H arrell’ s f

a ther a s “ j u st a no ther d a m pimp in the p u lp it” ; t hat in a M arc h 2022 p o st,

she s aid that B lac k po litic ians in t h e c o u nty c o u ld c ome get her bec a u se they k new

6 The asso c iated exhibit sho w ed that Calho u n’ s p o st inc lu d ed : “ [B o t h H arrell and ano t her id entif

ied p o litic ian] are c ro o k ed manip ulativ e lying ev il self ish garbage that reap w ith stinc h.

. . I n m y o p inio n, the bo th o f y o u c o m e f ro m a lo ng line o f traito ro u s anc esto rs .

. . W H A T A D A M B LOOD LI NE. ”

7 The a s s o c i ated exhibit sho wed that Calho u n wro te in her p o st: “ The Chairw oman o f H enry Co u nty Ga is a D A M FOOL! B lac k H isto ry is the p erf ec t time
to ref lec t u p tho se blac k f

o lk s lik e her fro m the b eginning o f s lav ery w ho had no d am p ro blem selling o ther blac k into slav ery, gu e s s her blo o d line is generatio nal[. ]”

8 T he asso c iated exhibit sho wed that C a l ho u n po sted co mmentary that “ [ a named state senato r] and H enry Co u nty C h airw o man Harrell are u nd erw r iting the gu id elines to su p p ress the blac k v o tes f o r t heir o w n se l f

ish gain” and that “ [t]his is

w hat I g o t to say abo ut so me o f o u r b lac k po litic ians in H enry Co u nty, Ga.

. . if yo u

w ant to ac cu se me of st al k i n g yo u r ass, c o me get me, yo u k no w where I a m

. . . o u r

v o t es are no t o nly being su pp ressed by w hite p o litic ians bu t also by blac k p o litic ians

as w ell and t hat’ s a d am shame.

. . Many o f o u r e lec t e d lead ers o r c hu rc h lead e rs

w o n’ t sp e ak o u t abo u t this c o rru p tio n and v o t e r su p pressio n bu t I w ill[. ]”

4w here she was; 9 that in an A p ril 2022 p o st, she said that H arrell w as a “ sk u nk ” ; 1 0 that

in ano th e r p o st , she d esc ribed H arrell as a “ piec e o f c rap ” ; 1 1 that in o ther p o sts

betw een A u gu s t 2021 and A p r il 2022, she c harac t e r iz ed H arrell’ s mo d e a s “ f etc hing

and step p ing,” 1 2 “ s k inning and grinning,” 1 3 a nd being a “ ho u se N egro .” 1 4 W h e n

9 T h e asso c iated exhibit sho w ed that Calho un w ro t e , in p art: “

. . . so if th e
c hairw o man o f H enry Co u nty o f any o f these o ther c o rru p t p o litic ians w ant to try and j ail me o r w o rse .

. . yo u k no w w here I am, I liv e, breath and talk in p lain sight. ”

10 T h e a s s o ci a t e d exhibit sho w ed that Calho u n’ s p o st inc lu d e d co m m e n t a r y t h a t

“ [ sev eral ind iv id u als] a nd Chairw o m an Carlo tta H arrell r u n to gether lik e a p ac k o f inf ec to us sk u nk s, they all smell o f c o rru ptio n[. ]”

1 1 The asso c iated e xhibit sho w ed that Calho u n w r o t e t hat a c ertain j u d g e , a

“ R e p u blic a n

. . . w h o m I believ e is an u nf air j u d ge, s ent me a gleef ully ro bo text end o rsement he go t f

ro m Carlo tta H arrell, who I believ e is a lying manip ulativ e p iec e
o f crap who hap p ens to be the c hair p erso n o f H enry Co u nty and a D emo c rat in name
o nly[. ]”

1 2 The asso ciated exhibit sho w ed that Calho u n w ro te, in p art, that “ [a c ertain j u d ge], a REPUB LI CA N is ru nning f o r reelec tio n in H enry Co u nty in a no n p artisan

rac e, so he d o esn’ t hav e to state his p arty af f iliatio n.

. . . Belo w the chairw o m a n o f H enry Co u nty and D emo c rat in name o nly e nd o rsing this j u d ge, f o r f av o rs no d o u bt he has d o ne f

o r her in t he past.

. . . I c a n o nly imagine ho w many p eo ple c ame bef o re him and t he o u tc o m es w ere no t f air. W hite f

o lk s hav e a p ro blem w ith teac hing CRI T I CA L RA CE T H EORY B UT H A V E N O PROB LEM W I TH B LA CK FOLK S STI LL PRA CTI CI N G TH E ‘ FETCH A N D STEP’ to aid them. ” (This exhibit w as
ac c omp anied by p ho to grap hs. )

1 3 The asso c iated exhibit s ho w ed t hat Calho u n w r o te, in p art: “ Carlo tta H arrell has m ad e su re mino rity r ep r esent a t i o n is a bare minimu m in H e nry Co u nty go v ernment

. . . case in p o int, she f o r c ed the blac k fire c hief to resign so she c an p lay

5ask ed w hether she had meant her name- c alling as c o m p liments, as f ighting w o rd s, o r

as so mething else, Calho u n’ s resp o nse inc lu d ed : “ [H a rrell] k no w s w hy I w ro te t hat.

She’ s blac k

. ”

W hen H arrell to o k the stand , she testif ied that s he w as th e C h a i r m an o f the

B oard o f Co mmissio ners in H enry Co u nty, b u t had bro u ght the ac tio n in her p riv a t e

c ap ac ity exp laining that “[i]t’ s abo ut my saf ety” ; that she w a s af

raid of Calho u n; and

that she c o nsid ered certain o f Calho u n’ s name- c alling to be f igh t i n g wo rd s and as

“ wo rd s o f inc itement” intend ed “ to rile up the B lac k c o mmu nity to a tt ac k [her]. ”

H arrell f u rther testif

ied that Calho u n’ s “ go ing af ter [her] f

a m ily” w as so mething

Calho u n had ad d e d sinc e the prev io u s p ro t e ctiv e ord er. W hen ask ed ho w she f elt

abo u t Calho u n’ s p o sts c o llec tiv ely, H arrell resp o nd ed ,

I f eel threatened

. I f

eel that my lif

e is threatened

. . . . A nd no w

. . . she’ s talk ing abo u t my f

athe r w h o w as a p asto r o f a c hu rc h o f 40 years. She

‘ fo o tsies w ith the white Rep u b liCON S in H enry Co u nty[’ ]

. . . H ere she stand s

‘ s k i n n i n g a n d grinning[‘ ] w ith the interim f ire c hief a w hite man she c ho se o v er all

o ther mino rities j u st as qu alif ied

. . . . ” (Pic tu res ac c o m p anied this p o st. )

1 4 The asso c ia t e d exhibit sho w ed that Calho u n w ro te, in p art: “ Chairw o man H arrell & [a sp ec if

ied state senato r] yo u r ro les in t rying to mak e t he H enry Co u nty B oard of Co mmissio ner s wh i t e a g a i n MAK E S T H E BO T H O F Y O U T H E B I GGEST H OUSE N EGROES A N D B I G GEST LOSERS[. ]”

6d o esn’ t ev en k no w my father.

. . . She k no w s no thing abo u t me. She ju st

seems to be a v ery angry p erso n, a nd I c onsid er her to be a threat to my lif e.

W hen Calho u n retu rned to the stand f o r d irec t examinatio n, she testif ied , “ I ’ m

a c o mmu nity ac tiv ist, and I s ay w hat the c o mmu nity n e ed s to hear abo u t c o rru p t

p o litic ians,” and s he p o inted o u t that she had p o sted to Fac e b o o k her op inio ns abo u t

sev eral o ther elec ted o f

f ic ials. Calho u n fu rther testif ied , “ That’ s w hat c o m m u n i ty

ac tiv ists d o

. I exerc ised my First A m end ment r ight in s tro ng terms, b u t i t d o es no t

mean that I w ant to hu rt [H arrell]. ” A s she desc ribed herself , “ I ’ m a go od p erso n w ho

has c ho sen as her lif

e w o rk to be a v o ic e of the p eo p le, a stew ard o f go v ernment, and

a go o d p erso n in my c ommu nity w ho is w illing to help o t h e r s in need [. ]” Calho u n

gav e examp les o f p ro grams she had started , inc lu d ing c reating a so f tball leagu e f

o r
girls, initiating p ro grams to ad d ress d ru g ad d ic tio n su ff ered by c ertain ind iv id u als,
assisting with t he start- u p o f a c o u nty d ru g co u rt, and help ing p ro batio ners su c h that
imp riso nment w a s “ the last reso rt. ” She exp lained , “ I ’ m v ery v o c al bec au s e I ’ m v ery

c o nc e rned abo ut w hat hap p ens to the p eo p le, and it has no thing to d o w ith me w anting

to hu rt Carlo tta H arrell, bu t it’ s abo u t mak ing the p eo ple u nd e rstand that they hav e

7rights[. ] ” She testif ied , “ I mu st let the p eo p le kno w, and I ’ m no t go nna a lw ays be M s.
Pretty Pretty abo u t a w o rd ,” bu t “ I mean [H arrell] no harm w hatso ev er. ”

A t the end o f the hearing, the trial c o u rt anno u nc ed its f ind ing that Calho u n’ s

u se of c ertain langu age in t he Fac ebo o k po sts w a s in v io latio n o f the stalk ing statu te,

OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0. 1 5 Rec iting f ro m that statu t e, the c o u rt exp o u nd ed :

I t says

– and this is the Co de Sec tio n o n stalk ing

– h a r a ss i n g a nd intimid ating ano ther p erso n, and t hen it says, it means k n o w i n gly a nd

w illf u l co u rse o f c o nd uc t d irec ted at a sp e c if ic p e rso n whic h c au ses

emo t io nal d istress by p lac ing and su c h perso n in reaso nable fear

. . . . I t’ s
yo u r langu age that is t he p ro blem here. I ’ m go ing to extend the restraining o rd er. It d o esn’ t mean to s ay that yo u c an’ t say, V o te against [H arrell]. Ru n against her. That’ s f ine. Bu t w hen yo u start u sing that f o u l langu age, yo u’ ve go t a p ro blem. That’ s w here the p r o b l e m lies, no t in

1 5 OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0 (a) (1 ) states that

A p erso n c o mmits the o f

f ense o f stalk ing when he or s he f ollo w s, p lac es

u n d e r s u r v e illanc e, o r c ontac ts ano ther p erso n at o r abo u t a p lac e o r p lac es w i th o u t the c o nsent o f the o ther p erso n f o r the p u rp o se o f harassing and intimid ating the o ther p erso n.

. . . Fo r the p u rp o ses o f this artic le, t he term “ harassing and intimid ating” means a k no w ing a nd

w illf u l co u rse o f co nd u ct d irec ted a t a sp e c if ic p e rso n whic h c au ses
emo t io nal d istres s b y p lac ing su ch perso n in reaso nable f e a r f o r s u c h p erso n’ s saf

ety o r the saf

ety o f a member o f his or her immed iate f amily, by establishing a p atte r n o f harassing and intimid ating behav io r, a nd

w hic h serv es no legitimate p u rp o se.

8w hat yo u ’ re trying to d o

. . . . Yo u c all t hem snak es. Yo u c all them ju st

the v ilest names I c an think o f , and yo u c an’ t d o that.

The c o u rt ac k no w led ged to Ca l h o u n t h at “ [y]o u d o a lo t o f go o d ,” bu t su ggested ,

“ Yo u need to start being p retty p retty abo u t w o rd s. So me o f i t c o mes fro m the

rec ip ient as a threat. ” Ref erring to o n e sp ec if

ic Fac ebo o k p o st, 1 6 t he c o u rt said to

Calho u n, “ [W ] hen yo u start talk ing abo u t c r o o k ed , manip u lativ e, lying, ev il, self ish
garbage, yo u ’ v e go ne b e y o nd the w ay yo u need to be. That’ s threatening. That

v io lates the Co d e. ”

That s a m e d a

y, J une 27 , 2022, the c o ntested Stalk ing Three Year Pro tec tiv e

Ord e r w as entered

.

I n this ap p eal, Calho u n c o ntend s that the s u p erio r co u rt abu sed its d isc retio n

in granting the p ro tec ti v e o r d e r

. 17 C a lho u n c o nc ed es that s he mad e the Fac ebo o k p o sts

and that – as she p u ts it

– “ [her] c ritic isms w ere blu nt, so metimes c ru de o r insu lting,

1 6 See f o otno te 6 , su p ra.

1 7 See Lewi

s v

. Lewi s , 31 6 Ga. A p p

. 6 7, 6 8 (7 28 SE2d 7 41 ) (201 2) (“ The grant

o r denial o f a m o t io n fo r a p ro t e c tiv e o rd er lies within t he so u nd d isc retio n o f the trial

c o u rt, and its d ec isio n o n su c h a mo t io n w ill no t be rev ersed absent an abu se o f that d isc r etio n. A n abu se o f d isc retio n o c c u rs w here a ru ling is u n s u p p o rted by any
ev id enc e o f rec o rd o r w here that ru ling misstates or misap p lies the r e l ev a nt law

. ” ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

9and so m e t i m e s p ro f ane. ” H o w e v er, she argu es that the t rial c ou rt erred by

d etermining that the p o s ts ro se to the lev e l o f s ta lki n g , giv en the lac k of a “ d irec t

c o mmu nic atio n f

ro m [her] s o lely to M s. Harrell. ” A s Calho u n c laims, her Fac ebo o k

p o sts w ere “ abo u t Harrell and her asso c iates, bu t [w ere] d irec ted to the p ublic , and

c o nc e rn[ed ] Ms. H arr e l l ’s co n d u ct a s a p u blic f igu r e. ” Calho u n thu s charac teriz es her

c o mmentary as p o litic al and intend e d t o inf lu enc e p u blic o p ini o n a n d vo ters. She

ad d itio nally co ntend s that “ [her] ac tiv ism in the f o r m o f Fac ebo o k p o sts a d v o c ating

f o r c hange in lo c al po litic s is s p e ec h p ro tec ted by the United States Co nstitu tio n and

t he G eo rgia Co nstitu tio n” and that she c anno t “ be silenc ed thro u gh the u se o f a

Stalk ing Three Year Pro tec t iv e Ord er, as is mad e c lear by OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 2. ” 1 8

1

. W e tu rn f

irst to Calho u n’ s c o ntentio n th at the ev id enc e w a s insu f f ic ient 1 9

bec au se an element o f

stalk ing u nd er OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0 w as no t established

.

1 8 OCGA 1 6

- 5- 92 p r o v id es in f u ll: “The p ro visio ns o f Co d e Sec tio ns 1 6

- 5- 9 0 and 1 6

- 5

- 9 1 sh all no t ap p ly to p e rso ns engaged in ac tiv ities p ro tec ted by the Co nstitu tio n o f

the United States o r o f

this state o r to p erso ns o r emp lo yees o f su c h p erso ns law f

u lly engaged in b o na f

id e bu siness ac tiv ity or law f u lly engaged in the p rac tic e o f

a p r o f essio n. ”

1 9 “ I n rev iew ing the s u ff

ic ienc y o f the ev id enc e , w e c o nstru e t h e e v i d e n c e in f av or o f the f

ind ings o f the trier o f f

ac t. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Bo d i v

. Rya n , 358 Ga. A p p

. 26 7, 26 7 (855 SE2d 1 1 ) (2021 )

.

10“ I n o rd er to o btain a p ro tec tiv e o r d er based o n stalk ing, t he p e titio ner m u s t

establish the elements o f the of fense by a p rep o nd eranc e o f the ev id enc e. ” Pi lcher v

.
S tri b li n g , 282 Ga. 1 6 6 , 16 7 (6 47 SE2d 8) (2007 ). I n p ertinent p art, t he stalk ing statu t e

p ro v id es, “ A p erso n c o mmits the o f f ense o f stalk ing w hen he o r she f o llo w s, p lac e s

u nd er s u rv eillanc e, o r c ontac ts ano ther p e rso n at or a b o u t a p lac e or p lac es w itho u t

the c o nsent o f the o t her perso n f o r the p urp o s e o f harassing and intimid ating the o ther

p erso n. ” OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0 (a) (1 ). Calho u n p o sits that there w as no allegatio n no r any

ev id enc e that she either f o llo w ed H arrell o r plac ed her u nd er su rv eillanc e. 2 0 A nd
relying o n C

ha n v

. Elli s , 29 6 Ga. 838 (7 7 0 SE2d 851 ) (201 5), Calho u n argu es that the

ev id enc e f

ailed to establish “ co ntac t” f o r p u rp o ses o f

the stalk ing statu te.

W e f ind merit in Calho u n’ s a r gu ment that in light o f C ha n , 29 6 Ga. 838, H arrell

f ailed to ad d u ce ev i d enc e su f f ic ient to establish that Calho u n c o ntac ted her in a

manner p ro hibited b y the stalk ing st a t u t e

. I n C ha n , the Su preme Co u rt o f Geo rgia

exp lained ,

2 0 Harrell mak es no c laim o n ap p eal t hat she alleged o r ev inc e d that Calho u n f o llo w ed her or p lac ed her und e r su r v eillanc e. A nd f o r reaso ns d isc u ssed belo w , w e rej ec t H arrell’ s argu ments f o r an af f irmanc e o f

the trial c o u rt’ s j u d gment.

11Fo r pu rp oses o f the [ stal k ing] statu te, o ne “ c o ntac ts ano ther p erso n”

w hen he [o r she] “ c o m m u nic a tes w ith ano ther p erso n” thro u gh any med iu m, inc lu ding an elec tro nic med iu m. See OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0 (a) (1 ).
See also Jo hn s on v

. S ta te , 26 4 Ga. 59 0, 59 1 (1 ) (449 SE2d 9 4) ( 19 9 4) (as

u sed in OCGA § 1 6- 5

- 9 0, “ [t]o ‘c o ntac t’ is read ily u nd e rsto o d by p eo p le

o f o rd inary intelligenc e as meaning ‘ to get in to u ch w ith; c o mmu nic ate

w ith’ “ (c itatio n and p u nc tu a tio n omitted )). A ltho u gh o ne m ay

“ co ntac t ” ano ther f

o r the p u r p o s es o f the statu te by c o mmu nic ating

w ith the other p e r s o n thro ugh any med iu m, it nev ertheless is essential that the c o mmu nic atio n be d irec ted s p ec if ic ally to that o t her p erso n, as

o p p o sed to a c o mmu nic atio n that is o nly d irec t e d generally to the p u blic

. Co mmo n and c u sto m ary u sag e s u g g e sts as mu c h, as d o es ano ther

p ro v isio n o f t he sta l k i n g l a w, w h i ch d e fi n e s “h a rassing a nd intimid ating”
in terms o f “ a k no w ing and w illf u l c o urse o f c o nd u c t di

rected at a speci

fi c pers o n

. ” OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0 (a) (1 ) (emp hasis su p p lied ).

(Fo otno tes o m itted ; emp hasis in o riginal. ) C ha n , 29 6 Ga. at 8 3 9

- 8 4 0 ( 1 ). A s C ha n

f u rther exp lained , “ That a c o m mu nic atio n is a b o u t a p artic u lar p erso n d o es no t mean

nec essarily that it is d irec ted to that perso n. ” (Emp hasis in o riginal. ) Id

. 840 (2). Fo r

instanc e, C

ha n no ted , “ [a]n o rd inary s p eak e r o f the English langu age typ ic ally w o u ld

no t say

. . . that a p o p u lar au tho r had ‘ c o ntac ted ’ o r ‘ c ommu nic ated w ith’ the sp eak er
simp ly bec au s e the sp eak er had read a bo o k written b y the a u tho r. ” I d

. at 840 (1 ), n.

6

.

12U p o n r e v i e wi n g t he ev id enc e in C h a n , o u r H igh Co u rt desc ribed that the r e co r d

sho w e d that
[ t h e a p p ellant] and o thers p o sted a lo t o f c o mmentary t o his w ebsite abo u t [the ap pellee], b u t it fails fo r t h e m o s t part to s ho w that the

c o mmentary w as d irec ted sp e c if ic ally to [ap p ellee] as o p p osed to the

p u blic

. A s w ritten, mo st of the p o sts ap p ear to sp e a k to t he pu blic , no t to [ap p ellee] in p artic u lar, ev en if they are abo u t [ap p ellee]. A nd there is no

ev id enc e th a t [ a p p ellant] d id anything to cau s e these p o s ts to be d eliv ered to [ap p ellee] o r o therw ise bro u ght to her attentio n,

no tw ithstand ing that [ap p ellant ] m a y hav e reaso nably antic ip ated that [ap p ellee] might c o me ac ro ss the p o sts, j u st a s a ny member o f the
I nternet- u sing p u blic might.

C hen , 29 6 Ga. at 841 (2). H old ing that “ [t]he p u blic a tio n o f c o mmentary d irec ted o nly

to the pu b lic generally d o es no t amo u nt to ‘ co ntac t,’ as that term is u sed in OCGA §

1 6

- 5

- 9 0 (a) (1 ) ,” C

h en c o nc lu d ed that “ [ ap pellee] f a iled to p ro v e that [ap p ella n t ]

‘ co ntac ted ’ her w itho u t her c o nsent, and [that] the t r ial c o urt erred w hen it c o nc lu d ed
that [ap p ellant] had stalk ed [ap p ellee]. ” I d

. at 842 (3).

Gu id ed b y C

h en , this Co u rt reac hed a similar c o nc lu s i o n i n B o di v

. Rya n , 358

Ga. A p p

. 26 7 (855 SE2d 1 1) (2 021 ). I n Bo d i , t he ap p ellee pro c u red a stalk ing

p ro tec tiv e o r d e r based u p o n the ap p ellant’ s p o st on Snap c hat’ s so c ial med ia

13p latf

o rm. 2 1 I d

. a t 26 8. This Co u rt no ted that the ap p ellant had c alled the ap p ellee an

o bsc ene name and inc lu ded o n his so c ial med ia p o st tha t h e w i s h e d a p p ellee w o u ld

d ie. I d

. a t 27 0 (b). H o w e v er, this Co u rt f o u nd no ev id enc e t hat the ap p ellant had been

su rv eilling o r f

ollo w ing the ap pellant, and no e vid enc e that the a p p ellant had either

c o ntac ted ap p ellee o r s e n t h er the so c ial m ed ia p o st. I d

. at 27 0 ( a ). Rec iting C hen ’ s

p r i n c i p l e that “ [t]he f

ac t that [ ap p ellant] c o u ld hav e reaso nably exp ec ted t hat [ t h e

ap p ellant] might d isc o v er th e p o s t s is insu f f ic ient to establish ‘ c ontac t’ und er the

statu te,” id

. at 27 0 (a), this Co u rt u ltimately c o nc lu d ed that the ap p ellee “ [d id ] no t

establish the nec e ssary c o ntac t to rise to the lev el o f stalk ing,” id

. at 26 9 (a), and that

the trial c o u rt thu s a b used its d isc retio n in granting the p ro t e c tiv e o rd er. I d

. at 27 1 (b).

I n the instant c ase, Calho u n ad mitted ly p o sted to Fac ebo o k co mmentary abo u t

H arrell (and asso c iated ind iv id u als), b u t t h e r ec ord “ f ails f or t he mo st part to sho w

2 1 The Snap c hat p o st co ntained the f o llo w ing c o mmentary ( w h i c h also p u blic iz ed the ap p ellee’ s d au ghter’ s ho s p italiz a tio n):
[F]-

- - yo u

. Su c k a f

at- ass d ic k

. Stu p i d a ss b itc h, yo u w ant to s talk my f

- -- ing Snap c hat sto ry and k eep yo u r d au ghter in a mental ho sp ital? Stalk this, yo u f

- - - ing retard ed bitc h. Yo u ’ re go ing to d ie the w o rst w a y there is to d ie, and I am p raying f o r it. F-

- - yo u , d o ing the mo st.

Bo di , 358 Ga. A p p

. at 26 8.

14that the c o mmentary w as direc ted sp ec if ic a lly to [ H arrell] as o p p o sed to the p u blic

.

A s w ritten, mo st of the p o sts ap p ear to sp eak to t he p u b l i c , no t to [H a rrell] in

p artic u lar, e v en if they are abo u t [H arrell]. ” C hen , 29 6 Ga. at 841 (2). Mo reo v er, the

rec o rd d o es no t s ho w that “ [ C alho u n] d id anything to c a u se [her] po sts to be

d eliv e red to [H arrell] or o therw is e b ro u ght to her attentio n, no tw ithstand ing that
[Calho u n] may hav e reaso nably antic ip ated that [H arrell] might c o me ac ro ss [her]

p o sts, ju st a s any member o f t he I nternet- u sing p u blic might. ” I d

. A s h e l d by C hen ,

“ [ t]he p u blic atio n o f c o mmentar y d i rec ted o nly to the p u blic generally d o es no t

amo u nt to ‘c o ntac t’ ” u nd er the stalk ing s ta t u t e

. I d. “ A ltho u gh ou r stand ard o f rev iew

is def erential, w here, as here, there is [insu f f ic ient] ev id e nc e to su p p o rt the [stalk ing]

c harge, and there is no t an issu e o f w itness c red ibility, w e are c o nstrained to rev erse”

the Stalk ing Three Year Pro tec tiv e Ord e r

. Bo di , 358 Ga. Ap p

. a t 26 9

. See C ha n , 29 6

Ga. at 838- 839 ( r e v ersing stalk ing p ro tec tiv e ord er, where d ef end ant’ s antago nistic

so c ial med ia p osts abo ut the v ic tim d id no t “ a mo u nt[] to the so rt o f ‘c o ntac t’ that is

f o rbid d en by OCGA § 1 6- 5- 9 0 (a) (1 )” ). 2 2

2 2 See a lso Pi

lcher , 282 G a. at 1 6 8 (c o nc lu d ing that the stalk ing p ro tec tiv e o rd er

w as no t au tho riz ed , w here the co mp lained -o f c o nd u c t

– inc lu d ing ap pellant’ s v erbal
tau nts o f “ c u rsing, threatening emp lo y ees’ j o bs, and b elittling emp l o y e e s ’ intelligenc e, p erso nal lif

e, weight, sexu al inexp erienc e o r financ ial situ atio n”

– d id no t

15N o tabl y, H arrell mak es no argu ment o n ap p e al t hat the Fac ebo o k p o sts w ere

su f fic ient u nd e r C

hen

. I nstead , she p o ints o u t that she p r o c u red in 2 0 2 1 a o n e

- year

stalk ing p ro tec t iv e ord er against H arrell, then relies o n OCGA § 19

- 1 3- 4 to assert that

“ [ t]he law p resu m es t h at the p rev io u s o rd er w ill be c o nv erted ” t o a three- year o rd e r

. 2 3

See generally S

ha di x v. C a rro ll C o u n ty , 27 4 Ga. 56 0, 56 5 (3) (c ) (554 SE2d 46 5) (2001 )
(c iting p rinc ip le that an ap p ellat e c o u r t m a y af f irm a j u d gment w hen “ right f o r any

reaso n, ev en if

it is based u p o n erro neo u s reaso ning” ).

B ut H arrell sp ec if

ies no p artic u lar l angu age in OCGA § 1 9 -1 3- 4 that she

p u rp o rts c reated a p resu mp tio n; she id entif ies no c ase au tho r i ty interp reting the

c o nstitu te stalk ing as d ef

ined in OCGA § 1 6

- 5

- 9 0 (a) (1 )) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ; Ma rks v

. S ta te , 30 6 Ga. A pp

. 824, 825- 826 (1 ) (7 0 3 SE2d 37 9 ) (201 0) (c o nc lu d ing that t he ap p ellant’ s p o sting statements o n the I nternet abo u t his ex- w if e d id no t c o nstitu te co ntac t p ro hibited by the p ro batio nary t er m o f t he aggrav ated stalk ing sentenc e , w here t here w as no ev id enc e that he au t ho red the w eb p o stings to get in to u c h w ith o r co mmu nic ate w ith his ex- w if e); C o l li n s v

. Ba z a n , 256 Ga. A p p

. 1 6 4, 1 6 5 (2) (56 8 SE2d 7 2) (2002) (c o nc lu d ing t hat “ [p ] u blishing o r disc u ssing a p erso n’ s med ic a l c o nd itio n with o t hers

. . . d o es no t c onstitu te f o llo w ing, p lac ing

u nd er su rv eillanc e, or co ntac ting that p erso n” as c o ntemp lated by the stalk ing d ef initio n s et f

o rth in OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 0). A c c o rd S ei b ert v

. S ta te , 3 2 1 Ga. A p p

. 243, 244- 245 (7 39 SE2d 91 ) (201 3) (rev ersing aggrav ated stalk ing c o nv ic tio n, w here there

w as insu f f ic ient ev id enc e o f c o ntac t).

2 3 N o tably, OCGA § 1 6

- 5- 9 4 (e) states that “ [t]he p ro v isio ns o f

. . . su bsec tio ns (b), (c ), and (d ) o f Co d e Sec tio n 1 9

- 1 3- 4,

. . . r e lating t o f a mily v io lenc e p etitio ns, shall ap p ly to p etitio ns f

iled p u rsu ant to this Co d e sec t io n. ”

16statu te as su c h; and she p u ts f o rth no legal analysis in her brief that the statu t e

c o ntemp lates any s u c h p r esu mp tio n. See generally Ya s h S o lu ti o n s v

. N ew Yo rk Glo b a l

C o n s u lta n ts C

o rp

. , 352 G a. A p p

. 1 27 , 1 37 (1 ) (b), n. 30 (834 SE2d 1 26 ) (201 9 ) (no ting

p rinc ip les that “ [m]ere c o n c l u s o ry statements are no t the typ e o f meaningf u l

argu ment co ntemp lated by o u r ru les” and that “ c o gent legal analysis

. . . is, at a

minimu m , a d isc u ssio n o f t h e ap pro p riate law as ap p lied to the relev ant f ac ts” )
(c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); H i ggi ns v

. S ta te , 251 Ga. A p p

. 1 75, 1 7 8 (3), n. 3
(554 SE2d 21 2) (2001 ) (“ A n assertio n o f erro r f o llo w ed by a c ase c itatio n is no t legal

argu ment. A s w e hav e exp lained , legal analysis is, at a minimu m, a d isc u ssio n o f the

ap p ro p riate law a s ap p lied to the relev ant f ac ts. ” ) (c itatio n and p unc t uatio n omitted );

Co u rt o f A p p eals Ru le 25 (b).

M o reo v er, w e no te that s u bsec tio n (c ) o f t he statu te c ited by Harrell p ro v id es:

A ny o rd e r granted und er this Co d e sec tio n shall remain in ef f ec t f or u p
to one year; p ro v id e d , ho w ev er, that u p on the mo tio n of a p etitio ner a nd

no tic e t o the r esp o nd e nt and a fter a hea ri

n g , the c o u rt in i ts di

s creti o n ma y

c o nv ert a temp o rary o r d er granted u nd er this Co d e sec tio n to an o rd er ef f ec tiv e f or no t mo re than three years o r to a p ermanent o rd er.

17(Emp hasis su p p lied

. ) OCGA § 1 9

- 1 3- 4 (c ). H ere, t he trial c o u rt c o nd u c ted a hearing;

H arrell d id no t c laim entitlement to extend ed p ro tec tio n as a m a tter o f any s tatu t o ry

p resu mp t io n; rather, in su p p o rt o f her sw o rn allegatio n o f “ c o nstant stalk ing o f M s.

Calho u n v ia so c ial med ia,” H a r r e l l p r esented at the hearing e v id enc e o f Calho u n’ s

n u m er o u s Fac ebo o k po s tings; and as d etailed abo v e , the trial c o u rt granted a threeyear stalk ing p ro tec tiv e ord er based o n an erro neo u s c o nc lu sio n that Calho u n’ s so c ial

med ia c o mmentary c o nstitu ted stalk ing.

G i v e n t h e s e ci r cu m s t a n ce s , H a r r e l l ’s n e wl y asserted , u nsu p p o rted p o sitio n th a t

“ [ t]he law p resu mes that the p rev io u s o rd er w ill be c o nv erted ” d o e s n o t p ro v id e a

basis f o r nev ertheless af

f irming the j u d gment. See S mi th v

. La ymo n , 27 9 Ga. 823, 824
(2) (6 20 SE2d 79 6 ) (2005) (“ Issu es nev er raised at trial w ill no t be c o nsid e red f o r the

f irst t ime o n a p p eal. ” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); Pfei ffer v

. G a. DOT , 27 5

Ga. 827 , 829 ( 2) (57 3 SE2d 389 ) (2002) (rec iting that “ [r]o u tinely, this Co u rt ref u ses

to r ev iew issu es no t raised in the trial c o u rt” ); C MGRP v

. G

a lla n t , 343 Ga. A p p

. 9 1 ,

9 4 (1 ) (806 SE2d 1 6) (201 7 ) (reiterating t hat o u r right- f or- any- re a s o n ru le may be

inv ok ed o nly w hen the issu e w as raised in the trial c o u rt a nd t he o p p o sing p arty had

18a f

air o p p o rtu nity t o r esp o nd ) ; s ee also Ya s h S o lu ti on s , 352 G a. A pp

. at 1 37 (1 ) (b), n.

30; H i ggi n s , 251 Ga. A p p. at 1 7 8 (3), n. 3; Co u rt o f A p p eals Ru le 25 (b).

2. Giv en o u r ho ld ing in D iv isio n 1 , su p ra, it is no t nec essary to reac h Calho u n’ s
remaining (c o nstitu tio nal) c hallenge to the Stalk ing T hree Year Pro tec tiv e Ord er. See

Herb ert v

. Jo rda n , 348 Ga. A p p

. 538, 539 (2) (823 SE2d 852) (201 9 ) (rev ers i ng stalk ing

p ro tec tiv e o rd ers o n o ne gro u nd and , thu s, d ec lining to ad d ress remaining c hallenges

to su c h o rd ers).

Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Go bei

l, J. , co n c u rs fu lly a n d s

peci a lly. Pi pki n , J. , di s s en ts

.A 23A 0 27 9

. CA LH OUN v

. H A R R ELL.

G O B E IL , J ud ge, c o nc u r ring f ully and sp ec ially.

W hile I c onc ur fu lly w ith the r e s u l t reac hed in this c ase, I w rite sep arately to

no te that o u r d ec isio n sho uld no t be re a d a s i mp lying t hat so c ial med ia p o sts

c atego ric ally c a nno t b e u sed in vio latio n of anti- stalk ing law s — o r o t her law s f o r that

matter (lik e inc itement to an illegal ac t). I n this case, Calho u n’ s w o rd s and a c tio ns

—

as of f ensiv e and und erstand ably u nsettling as they are — simp ly f ail to rise to the lev el

o f “ c ontac t ” f

o r stalk ing giv en the ho ld ings in C ha n and Bo d

i

.A 23A 0 27 9

. CA LH OUN v

. H A RRELL.

P IP K I N , J u d ge, d issenting.
Relying o n C

ha n v

. E l li s , 29 6 Ga. 838 (7 70 S E2d 851 ) (201 5 ), the maj o r ity

c o nc lu d es that there was insu f f ic ient ev id enc e that Calho un “ c o ntac ted ” Harrell to

satisf y OCGA § 1 6- 5

- 9 0 (a) ( 1 )

. H o w ev er, when the ev id enc e is view ed in the

ap p ro p riate light, C

ha n is d istingu ishable f

ro m t his c ase. Co nsequ ently, I w ou ld d ef er

to the trial c o u rt’ s s u bstantial d isc retio n and a f f irm the d eterminatio n that Calho u n

d id , in f a c t, rep eated ly “ co ntac t” H ar r e l l “ f o r the p u rp o s es o f harassing and

intimid ating” her. Fo r these reaso ns, I mu st d issent.I n C

ha n v

. E lli s , Matthew Chan’ s w ebsite had bec ome a rep o sito ry f o r c ritic ism

o f a p o et and her e f

f o rts to e nf

o rc e the c o p yr i g h t o n her w o rk ; the website f eatu red

“ 2,000 p o sts” abo u t the p o et, “ so me o f w hic h [w ere] d istastef u l a nd c ru d e. ” C

ha n ,

7 7 0 Ga. 838. The Cha n Co u rt exp lained , ho w ev e r , t h a t , ev en w here “ a

c o mmu nic atio n is a b ou t a p artic u lar p erso n [that it ] d o es no t mean nec essarily that it

is d irec ted to that p erso n. ” I d

. a t 840 (2). A nd , the ev id enc e in that c ase “ fail[ed ] f o r

the mo s t p art to sho w that the c o mmentary w as d irec ted sp ec if ic ally to [the p o et] as

o p p o sed to the p u blic

. ” I d. at 841 (2).

The p o sts in this c ase, o n the other hand , were no t l i m ited t o so meo ne’ s

p erso nal w ebsite; instead , Calho u n u sed s o ci a l medi a , namely, Fac ebo o k t o target

H arrell. Co nsistent w ith the d es i g n o f s o c ial med ia, a nu mber o f Calho u n’ s p o sts

“ t ag” d o z ens o f o th e r Fac ebo o k users and u tiliz e nu mero u s “ hashtags,” bo th o f

w hic h w o u ld be d esigned to enlarge the au d ienc e o f her p o sts; it w o u ld be r easo nable

to inf er that these tac t ic s w ere a ls o d esigned to r eac h H arrell, esp ec ially giv en that

many o f the p o sts are d irec ted at H arrel l and a nu mber are written in the sec o nd

p erso n. Thu s, c o nstru ing the e v id enc e in f av o r o f t he find ings o f the trier o f f ac t, as

w e mu st, I d isagree with the maj o r ity o p inio n tha t “ t he rec o rd do es no t s ho w that

Calho u n d i d anything to c a u se her po sts to be d eliv ered to H arrell o r otherw ise

2bro u ght to her attentio n. ” I n f ac t, the rec o rd sho w s that H arrell’ s sister b ec ame aw are

o f the p osts and issu ed a resp o nse; Calho un then qu o ted that resp onse in a su bsequ ent

p o st and u sed it to c o ntinu e her barrage o f w o rd s to w ard H arrell.

W hile I r e c o gniz e t h at w e mu st be mind f ul o f restric ting sp eec h, Calho u n’ s

nu mero us p o sts are f

illed w ith gro tesqu e ra ci a l a t t a c k s and u nsu bstantiated allegatio ns

o f c riminal co n d u ct , w hic h target bo th H arrell and her f amily. Fu rther, the u nd isp u ted

ev id enc e established that Harrell f eared f o r her saf ety and that s he f

elt threatened by

Calho u n. I n light of the e v id e nc e p resented to the t rial c o u r t b elo w , it is imp erativ e

that w e a bid e b y o ur w ell- established stand a rd o f rev iew and u p ho ld the trial c o u rt’ s

so u nd exerc ise o f

its d isc retio n.

A c c o rd ingly, I resp ec tf

u lly d issent.

3