Court Opinion

ID: 9788652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:14:03.90219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:15.643303
License: Public Domain

OPALA, J.,
dissenting
T1 I am unable to join today's opinion which reverses the trial court's order that was issued below for the protection of the complainant (plaintiff). I would instead affirm that order together with its counsel-fee award, costs and other incidental elements of adjudication.
J.
THE TRIAL COURTS PROTECTIVE ORDER, WHICH MAY NOT BE REVERSED ON REVIEW BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, IS ENTITLED TO AFFIRMANCE BY THE COMMAND OF ANCIENT ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN APPELLATE REVIEW OF A TRIAL COURTS FACT FINDINGS.
T2 The record fails clearly to illuminate the origin or nature of the intrafamilial dispute preceding the incident which gave rise to the controversy. What does stand unveiled is that the complainant, a lady 65 years of age, and one of her younger nephews had a heated and unpleasant verbal exchange during a church funeral service for the complainant's brother who was the defendant's father. By phone that nephew promptly reported the exchange to the defendant, his cousin (and a nephew of the complainant), with whom he enjoyed a life-long cordiality. In the telephone conversation held shortly after the unpleasant occurrence the cousin let the defendant know he was too upset to attend the graveside ceremonies that were to follow the church service. It is in the cemetery that the defendant later angrily confronted his aunt. Their graveyard encounter provides the setting for the proof adduced in support of and defense against the protective order the complainant sought.
3 While waiting for the driver of the car in which she went to the graveside service, complainant was approached by the defendant who in very angry tones threatened to "whip her ass" if she did not leave.
T4 The incident was witnessed by complainant's elderly cousin who confirmed complainant's version of the encounter. The record is clear that complainant was not the aggressor. She was approached by the defendant who addressed her in angry tones and vulgar language by threats that she would be whipped if she did not leave.
1 5 In the seenario unfolded by the record the role which the defendant assumed in the encounter can readily be described as that of a self-appointed avenger of a wrong, real or imagined, which he believed was visited on a relative most deserving of his protection. When allowing his law-enforcement instinets to dictate his actions at the graveside the defendant invaded the complainant's right to be free of his improper meddling by threats.
1 6 The record fully supports the complainant's legal right to a protective order and the defendant's utter failure to present either proof or legal theory sufficient to defeat the complainant's legal claim to affording her safety from defendant's threatening, invasive and intrusive actions.
II.
HARASSMENT MAY BE ESTAE-LISHED BY PROOF OF A SINGLE EPISODE.
T7 Harassment's meaning is defined by Subdivision 3 of 22 0.8. Supp.2005 § 60.1 as a "course or pattern of conduct". These terms do not call for more than a single episode of harassing demeanor. Pattern of *559conduct is simply a synonym of "form of conduct". See Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1961 edition.
IIL.
DEFENDANTS THREATENING DEMEANOR IS ESTABLISHED BY CRYSTAL-CLEAR PROOF.
T8 The defendant was doubtless angered by his cousin's decision not to be in attendance at graveside service. Because he ascribed to the complainant all the blame for his favorite cousin's withdrawal from funeral participation, he threatened to beat up on her as punishment to be administered for disturbing the family's plan for the funeral.
IV.
NO IMMUNITY APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANTS DEMEANOR.
19 The defendant is a police officer with seven years of experience. At the time and place germane to this proceeding he was not acting in the exercise of his official police duties. He was not even on duty performing law enforcement functions. He is hence not immune here from the law's reach. At the place of his encounter in controversy the defendant had neither law enforcement authority nor land possessor's power to bar the complainant from the locus in guo. This case affords no opportunity for recognizing any exception from the law's general application.
v.
SUMMARY
110 This court sits in this case as an appellate tribunal called upon to review a trial court's proceedings. In this capacity it is utterly powerless to readjudicate de novo any of the facts found by the trial judge. Because the trial court's findings are clearly not contrary to the weight of the evidence, they must be accepted on review as true and entitled to credence. Liberty Plan Co. v. Francis T. Smith Lumber Co., 1961 OK 30, ¶ 18, 360 P.2d 500, 505.
T 11 The defendant may not clad himself in the mantle of an avenger of complainant's wrongdoing, real or imagined.1 He is not immune here from the law's general application because he is a police officer. He was not acting in that capacity when this controversy arose. The complainant is hence entitled to the trial court's protective order. It rests on record proof which may not be disregarded. It is not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Time-honored deference to nisi prius fact finding is here absolutely commanded. Akin v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1998 OK 102, ¶ 35, 977 P.2d 1040, 1054.

. The trial judge's thoughtful analysis of the case appears to have led him to conclude the defendant's willingness to undergo anger control counseling might serve to accelerate the end of the protective order's life. In this view I wholeheartedly concur.