Opinion ID: 889775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the District Court punish Kalin for exercising his right to enjoy and defend his liberty?

Text: ¶ 29 Kalin points out that, under the Montana Constitution, he has the inalienable right to enjoy and defend his life and liberty. See Mont. Const. art. II, § 3. He contends Finding No. 9 in the District Court's order of protection indicates the court was punishing him for exercising his right to defend his liberty by pursuing an appeal of the temporary order of protection. Finding No. 9 reads, in relevant part: [Kalin's] opposition to the restraining order that was set to expire at about year end also demonstrates his interest in [Jordan]. He has diligently opposed the restraining order even though it had no practical effect on his life and was set to expire soon, both in Justice Court and then on appeal to District Court, requiring travel to Montana twice, yet when questioned about several criminal matters [Kalin] was charged with in Ohio, his responses indicated he hadn't had interest in them, in effect ignoring and blowing them off, letting the lawyers handle it and not caring about the result. Kalin also points out that, at the hearing, the District Court stated: [T]he part that spooks me is that you've put all this effort into fighting the thing with no apparent reason for wanting to do it other than you want to be able to contact her and not have it in violation of a temporary order of protection. Kalin claims the above comments indicate the District Court based its decision to issue an order of protection on the fact that he pursued his legal right to contest the petition in both Justice's Court and in District Court. ¶ 30 While Kalin is correct that he has a constitutional right to defend himself in court, we disagree that the District Court's comments reflect punishment for Kalin's exercise of this right. To the extent the court contrasted Kalin's demonstrated attitude in this case with his testimony describing his lack of concern about several criminal matters previously filed against him in Ohio, the court was highlighting the peculiarity of Kalin's behavior in choosing to be personally present to fight a Montana protective order, far from his home, that would expire in a matter of a few months. The court commented in particular on its observations of Kalin's behavior in the courtroom, where he watched Jordan throughout the proceedings. The difference between Kalin's attitude about Ohio criminal charges against him which could directly impact his libertyand the order of protection proceedings in this casewhich would only limit his ability to contact Jordanwas indicative, not of Kalin's interest in defending himself, but of his intense interest in pursuing Jordan. In that regard, we disagree with the District Court's comment that this is a borderline case of stalking. Kalin's behavior, as described in the evidence presented to the District Court and as demonstrated at the hearing in this matter, presented ample grounds for the issuance of a permanent order of protection. ¶ 31 We hold that Kalin has not established the District Court punished him for exercising his right to enjoy and defend his liberty. ¶ 32 Affirmed. We concur: JAMES C. NELSON, JIM RICE, PATRICIA COTTER and BRIAN MORRIS, JJ.