Court Opinion

ID: 9926227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 15:02:08.038978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.475178
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 40
                     ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION I
                                        No. CV-23-217

 STEVEN BRAZIL                                    Opinion Delivered January 24, 2024
                                 APPELLANT
                                                  APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
                                                  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                               [NO. 63DR-22-1096]

 JULIE GOGGINS BRAZIL                       HONORABLE BRENT DILLON
                                   APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE

                                                  AFFIRMED

                               ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

       Steven Brazil appeals the December 12, 2022 final order of protection granted by the

Saline County Circuit Court in favor of Julie Goggins Brazil. He challenges the sufficiency

of the supporting evidence as well as the denial of his motion for new trial, additional

findings, and reconsideration of the order of protection. We affirm.

                                 I. Facts and Procedural History

       On November 18, 2022, Julie filed a petition for an order of protection against her

former spouse, Steven, alleging, “I fear for my life. He has left a death threat and is harassing

me. The mental and emotional abuse is excessive.” Julie further indicated that Steven owned

multiple firearms and that she did not know where they were located. In the accompanying

affidavit, Julie asserted:
                 I was divorced from Steven Brazil on 8-2-22. I was awarded the marital home,
         and he had to move out in 10 days. He moved out, and I moved in, and bloody sheets
         were in the washer, an electrical cord was damaged and very dangerous found plugged
         in under a desk. A contempt of court was filed that will go before the judge on 12-19-
         22. On 10-7-22 I found a death threat in my front yard that had my name and had
         been burned—during a burn ban. I live in a home that backs up to woods which could
         have caught fire. I called the police on 10/8/22 to see if I could get a report and they
         said I did not have video of him placing it in the yard. 11/10/22 I saw 4 masked people
         in my yard on the Ring camera and called the neighbors. They turned on more lights
         and ran outside and the people ran off. I called police and they shined a light and said
         they were gone. I asked for a report, and they said they were the only car in the county,
         and it would be on a call log. I have the cord and death threat and video with me.

There was no specific allegation in the petition, affidavit, or transcript that Steven had

physically harmed Julie.

         A temporary order of protection was entered on November 18. Steven claims there is

no evidence in the record that it was served on him; however, page 3 of the record pleading

and a November 30, 2022 docket entry indicate a return of service dated November 22,

2022.

         A hearing on Julie’s petition was held on December 12, at which Julie and Steven

were both represented by counsel. No challenge to service was made by Steven to the circuit

court.

         Julie testified that she and Steven were divorced on August 2 and that she took

possession of their formerly shared residence on August 12. Julie presented a text message

sent from Steven to her on August 4, 2022, that stated, “I’m just warning you, the memories

in this house will haunt you. Or at least they have me.” Julie explained that on August 12,

when she took possession of their formerly shared residence, she found bloody sheets in the

                                                 2
open washing machine and a missing lock on the entry door between the garage and the

kitchen. Julie presented a photograph depicting that the middle part of the lock was missing

and stated that this caused her considerable concern because if someone had the garage code

or garage door opener, then that person could enter into the home due to the broken lock.

Julie also presented photographs of the electrical cord that was stripped to the bare wire and

plugged into the wall. She testified the stripped cord was in the place of an extension cord

in working order and that she discovered the normal extension cord in the garage, which

caused her to think it was an intentional act to replace a working extension cord with a cord

that was stripped and had exposed wire.

       Julie testified that on October 7, she found a funeral balloon that contained a

handwritten note that said, “Julie, my loving wife. I miss you so much. Love you. Go Hogs.”

Later characterizing the funeral balloon as a lantern, Julie read part of the message on the

lantern for the circuit court: “In memory of those who are no longer with us. May this light

ascend to heaven and shine with you within the vastness of infinity.” Julie testified that when

she found this item she was “very scared” for her safety at that point. She stated that she

viewed the message on the balloon as a death threat and was “absolutely” concerned. Further,

Julie noted that she is a graduate of the University of Missouri and that, in addition to her

opinion that the handwriting on the balloon was Steven’s, she testified that during their

marriage, Steven would say “Go Hogs” to her because he always cheered for the team that

played against Missouri. Julie acknowledged that after urging from her brother, she made a

police report on October 8.

                                              3
       Julie testified that on November 10, she received notifications from her Ring doorbell

camera and saw video footage of four people wearing ski masks running up on her property.

Julie stated she contacted her neighbor, and her neighbor’s husband turned on their lights

and came out of the back of their home. After her neighbor’s husband turned on the lights,

they could hear people running back into the woods behind her home and dogs barking

across the woods. Julie testified that she had no doubt that the first person in the video was

Steven. Julie again affirmed that she was concerned for her imminent safety. Julie played the

November 10, 2022 Ring doorbell video for the circuit court in support of her testimony

and presented still photographs from the video depicting an unmasked female wearing riding

boots. Julie also presented a photograph from a trail camera taken on November 10, 2022,

depicting the masked individuals coming up the driveway next to her garage doors.

       Julie’s neighbor, Terry Polk, testified that on or about October 7, Julie noticed what

appeared to be a white bag at the edge of her property. She explained that they walked over

to pick it up while they were talking. Julie picked it up and discovered it was a balloon that

had writing on it. Terry testified that Julie turned visibly pale and was terrified when she read

what was on the funeral-type balloon. She stated that Julie immediately interpreted it as being

a death threat, and she confirmed that the handwriting on it said, “Julie, my loving wife. I’ll

miss you.”

       Terry also testified regarding an interaction with Julie on November 10. Terry

confirmed that she received a phone call from Julie that there were four people in ski masks

on her property. Terry explained that her husband, Brett Polk, got his pistol and went out

                                               4
the back of their house to check on the situation. Terry noted that during her interaction

with Julie that evening, she noticed that Julie was very scared because masked intruders had

come onto her property and that she believed one of them was Steven. Terry also testified

that Julie had been visibly scared during these incidents and believed that Steven was going

to harm her, even stating when Julie found the funeral balloon, she said, “He’s going to kill

me.”

       Brett Polk testified regarding his observations and actions on November 10 related to

the masked intruders on Julie’s property. Brett explained that he took a flashlight outside to

determine whether there was a threat or danger. Brett acknowledged that he did not see any

individuals when he searched outside but stated that he did see that Julie was in fear at that

time. Brett testified that he did not recognize the individuals from Julie’s video, but they had

their faces covered. Brett testified that Julie and Steven’s divorce had been contentious but

that he had considered both Julie and Steven his friends. He acknowledged on cross-

examination that he had not seen Steven act dangerously or be a problem but also noted

that he tried to mind his own business.

       Steven testified, denying all the allegations against him except that he left a dry-rotted

extension cord plugged in around a desk so that he could plug in all his equipment. He

noted that the electrical cord’s casing was dry rotted, but the copper wire was not exposed

and that he would use that same cord today because it was not dangerous.

       Steven presented a photograph taken on October 8 to support his testimony that he

had been at Greers Ferry with his girlfriend from after work on October 7 until October 9.

                                               5
Steven denied ever seeing the balloon, denied that it was his handwriting, and specifically

testified that the “G” in “Go Hogs” is not how he writes the letter “G.”

       Steven testified that he had not been back to the residence since August 12 at

approximately 7:45 a.m., nor had he been back to the woods on the edge of the property.

Steven was asked to identify his girlfriend’s physical features and skin color, and he stated

that she wears riding boots when she rides horses. However, Steven said she did not have tall

dark boots, although there is a picture on Facebook from twelve years ago in which she is

wearing that type of boot.

       Steven testified that he had removed the “guts” of the lock to the door in mid-July

because the door was getting stuck. Steven testified he put the removed parts in a laundry-

room drawer and did not repair the lock because he felt it was secure with the existing

deadbolt.

       He testified further that he did not wish any bodily harm to Julie, had not threatened

Julie, did not wish “ill will” on her, had no reason whatsoever to contact her following August

12, and did not object to a no contact order being entered in the divorce case. Steven

objected to the entry of an order of protection, but because he did not understand the

severity of an order of protection, he did not want it to affect his employment.

       Melinda Egandoerfer, Steven’s girlfriend, testified that she and Steven were at Greers

Ferry from October 7 until October 9, and she identified a photograph on Steven’s phone

that showed her at the lake on October 8 at 1:42 p.m. Melinda testified that she was home

on November 10 and had not been to Julie’s home, and she denied that she was an individual

                                              6
depicted in one of Julie’s Ring doorbell camera screenshots. Melinda also denied owning any

boots like the boots pictured on one of the individuals and testified she had not seen Steven

try to contact Julie.

          On cross-examination, Melinda stated she could not account for Steven’s

whereabouts on October 6, that he was probably with her, but that she did not know.

Melinda identified her Facebook page and a picture from her account showing her wearing

tall dark boots. Melinda testified that she was in her twenties in that photograph but did still

own the “boots that are tall.”

          A three-year final order of protection was entered on December 12, effective until

December 12, 2025. In that order, the circuit court found that it had jurisdiction; “[Steven]

has been provided with proper notice and the opportunity to be heard”; and “the victim(s)

is (are) in immediate and present danger of domestic abuse and therefore an Order of

Protection is hereby granted pursuant to the terms herein.” Steven was prohibited from

initiating any contact with Julie at her residence, her workplace, and an additional address

in St. Louis, Missouri. The warnings to Steven included the potential for imprisonment and

fines up to $2,500. The order also prohibits Steven from possessing a firearm, among other

things.

          On December 27, Steven filed his motion for new trial, additional findings, and

reconsideration of the December 12 order of protection. On January 12, 2023, Steven filed

his initial notice of appeal. On February 21, after his motion was denied by operation of law,

                                               7
Steven filed his amended notice of appeal, adding notice of his appeal from the denial of his

motion.

                           II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

       Our standard of review following a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings

are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Bohannon v.

Robinson, 2014 Ark. 458, at 6, 447 S.W.3d 585, 588. A finding is clearly erroneous when,

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left

with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 7, 447 S.W.3d at

589. Disputed facts and determinations of the credibility of witnesses are within the province

of the fact-finder. Id.

                                        III. Discussion

              A. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting the Order of Protection

       Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-201 (Repl. 2020) requires that a petitioner

file an affidavit alleging specific facts and circumstances of domestic abuse in connection

with a request for an order of protection under the Domestic Abuse Act. When a petition

for a protective order is filed under the Domestic Abuse Act, the circuit court may provide

relief to the petitioner upon a finding of domestic abuse. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-205(a)

(Repl. 2020). “Domestic abuse” is defined as “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the

infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or

                                              8
household members[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-103(4)(A) (Repl. 2020).1 This court has

defined “imminent” to mean likely to occur at any moment or impending at the time of the

alleged abuse. Hocut v. Hocut, 2022 Ark. App. 452, at 6, 655 S.W.3d 527, 532.

       If an order of protection is granted without sufficient evidence to support a finding

of domestic abuse, the order will be reversed. See Paschal v. Paschal, 2011 Ark. App. 515, at

7. Where there is no evidence that the respondent committed physical abuse or inflicted

imminent fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault, it is an abuse of discretion to issue

the order of protection. Claver v. Wilbur, 102 Ark. App. 53, 59, 280 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008).

       Steven argues that here, there is no allegation that meets the required statutory

definition nor is there sufficient evidence to support a finding of domestic abuse pursuant

to section 9-15-103. He notes that even in cases that involve a past history of physical abuse—

not alleged in this matter—we have held that harassing texts and phone calls “do not fall

under the legislative definition of domestic abuse.” Paschal, 2011 Ark. App. 541, at 7.

       Steven argues that Julie had an affirmative obligation to present evidence to the circuit

court that he committed acts of physical or bodily harm against her or that she was in fear

of such harm from him. See Morales v. Garcia, 2021 Ark. App. 438, at 6. He maintains that

she failed to meet that burden either in her affidavit or in her testimony.

       The circuit court did not make any specific written findings to support its entry of

the order or protection, stating the following at the conclusion of the hearing:

       1
      It is undisputed that the parties meet the definition of “family or household
members” as defined in section 9-15-103(5).

                                               9
               First piece of evidence I want to focus on is the text message dated August the
       4th where Mr. Brazil says, “I’m just warning you, but the memories of this house will
       haunt you.” Then, after that text message was sent, a couple of months later this
       funeral balloon is found, “In memory of Julie, my loving wife. I miss you so much.”
       with a heart and a “U” and a “!” found on Ms. Brazil’s property, and her first name
       is Julie. And if I were to receive this kind of balloon on my property with my name
       written on it, I would have to believe that’s a threat. I can’t see it any other way.
       Because this is being written for someone who has passed on. And certainly, the
       implication is that Julie is deceased and no longer with us. So, Mr. Brazil, I’ll just tell
       you, I don’t believe your testimony. I just do not. I think that the coincidences here
       are just too great. The fact that this balloon was placed on this property, and then you
       just happen to be at Greers Ferry after that. I’m entering the Order of Protection
       because I believe that those things together are, as the statute defines, fear of
       imminent physical harm or bodily injury. So, I’m entering the Order of Protection.
       I’m going to do so for three years.

       Steven argues that the text referenced is not a threat and was clearly not perceived as

one by Julie. The text at issue is from August 4, 2022, days after the decree was entered and

three months prior to the alleged behavior that gave rise to the petition for an order of

protection. In its ruling, the circuit court mentions only the first half of the text message.

The full text says, “I’m just warning you but the memories in this house will haunt you, or at

least they have me.” (Emphasis added.) Approximately three hours after that text, Julie wrote

back to Steven and told him he could have the bed in the master bedroom. He notes that

they continued to have a normal text exchange regarding the division of their property.

Steven claims that no one took that text as a threat, and not even Julie testified at the hearing

that she found the text in question to be a threat.

       Further, he claims that there is no evidence that connects him to the paper lantern,

and the testimony at the hearing left the origin of the lantern questionable, at best. The

lantern contains printed language stating, “In memory of those who are no longer with us,

                                               10
may this light ascend to heaven and shine with you within the vastness of infinity.” In a blank

box under the words “In memory of,” there is handwriting that says, “JULIE MY LOVING

WIFE I MISS U SO MUCH!! [heart] U! GO HOGS!!”

       The testimony at the hearing indicated that the lantern initially was seen the morning

of October 7, 2022, by Terry Polk and that no one did anything about it until after work

that day. He notes that although Julie testified the incident occurred during a burn ban and

that she was very scared when she found the paper lantern—the type that you light to make

it float up, she did not call the police until the next day after speaking with her brother about

it.

       Finally, Steven urges that there is no evidence that the individuals who were alleged

to be on Julie’s property had anything to do with him or were threatening her in any way.

Again, Steven points out that Julie did not call the police but instead called her neighbors to

investigate. Evidence indicated that when Brett Polk went outside, the people ran back into

the woods. And despite Julie stating that it caused her concern for her “imminent safety and

physical fear,” she did not file her petition for an order of protection until November 18,

2022, over a week later.

       Steven argues that without evidence of prior physical harm, a prior pattern of harm,

or actions that would demonstrate that Julie was in fear of imminent physical harm, the

circuit court’s entry of an order of protection for three years is clearly erroneous or against

the weight of the evidence. We disagree.

                                               11
       Despite Steven arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the circuit court’s

finding of domestic abuse, he ignores the testimony and evidence presented by Julie and her

supporting witnesses. This court has affirmed prior decisions largely due to the credibility

findings of the circuit court. See Armstrong v. Armstrong, 2019 Ark. App. 188, at 4, 574 S.W.3d

720, 722 (holding that even if the facts were limited to the most recent incident, it was within

the purview of the circuit court to assess the witnesses’ credibility); see also Walter v. Chism,

2018 Ark. App. 127, at 6, 543 S.W.3d 550, 553 (affirming the grant of an order of protection

where the circuit court resolved two diametrically opposed versions of events on the basis of

the credibility of witnesses).

       We reject Steven’s attempt to draw our focus only on “physical domestic abuse” and

note the circuit court’s specific acknowledgement of Julie’s credible testimony and

supporting evidence of her imminent fear of harm, bodily injury, and assault from her former

spouse. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-103(4)(A). Julie presented evidence of the “I’m warning

you” text message; the funeral balloon containing a written statement implying she was dead

and in handwriting she testified was Steven’s handwriting left at her home; the dangerous

electrical cord admittedly left by Steven in the home; the broken lock to the door; and images

of individuals on her property at night wearing masks to conceal their identities. The circuit

court analyzed the evidence before it as well as the credibility of the parties and found in

favor of Julie. Steven’s appeal essentially asks this court to reweigh the evidence in his favor

and to reach a result contrary to that of the circuit court. But under the standard of review,

this court does not act as a “super fact-finder, and it is not reversible error for the circuit

                                               12
court to weigh the evidence differently” than Steven asks the evidence to be weighed. Bentley

v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 374, at 13, 554 S.W.3d 285, 293. The credibility

of any witness’s testimony is to be assessed by the trier of fact—and the trier of fact may believe

all, part, or none of it. Id.

       B. Denial of Motion for New Trial, Additional Findings, and Reconsideration

        Steven also argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial,

additional findings, and reconsideration of the December 12, 2022 order of protection that

was filed on December 27. In it, Steven argued that the evidence presented was insufficient

for the finding of domestic abuse, as discussed above. Additionally, Steven argued that the

finding of domestic abuse interfered with his constitutional right to bear arms, both inside

and outside of the home, and, as such, should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny.

        Because there was no reversible error in the circuit court’s grant of the order of

protection, we hold there likewise is none in the circuit court’s denial of Steven’s motion.

        Affirmed.

        VIRDEN and WOOD, JJ., agree.

        Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, by: Catherine A. Ryan, for appellant.

        LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by: Lauren White Hoover, for appellee.

                                                13