Court Opinion

ID: 9513513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:37:08.415889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:53.724398
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice.
[¶ 1] Roland C. Riemers appeals a domestic violence protection order restraining him from contact with Jenese A. Peters Riemers, We affirm the protection order.
I
[¶ 2] On March 6, 2000, Peters-Riem-ers applied for domestic violence protection from Riemers. In her application, Peters-Riemers attested that she and Riemers had been involved in a verbal and physical confrontation on March 4, 2000. She packed a bag and told Riemers she was taking their two-year-old son with her •to stay in a hotel. Riemers told her she could not take their son, and the parties began struggling. During the struggle, Peters-Riemers dialed 911, but Riemers held her from the telephone. They struggled until Riemers hit Peters-Riemers in the face, and she fell to the floor. Riemers went to another room, and Peters-Riem-ers picked up her bag and left the house. As she was leaving, a patrol car drove into the driveway. Peters-Riemers explained she had placed the 911 call. After showing the officers she needed medical attention, she drove herself to a hospital. Peters-*86Riemers’ injuries included bone fractures, bruising, and swelling around her eye.
[¶ 3] The district court granted Peters-Riemers a temporary domestic violence protection order on the day of her application. A hearing was held on March 14, 2000, to determine whether to issue a permanent protection order. During the hearing, Riemers attempted to testify about alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers and about his state of mind at the time of the March 4, 2000, confrontation. Riemers also attempted to cross-examine Peters-Riemers regarding the alleged incidents of previous abuse. Peters-Riemers objected to both lines of inquiry based on relevance. The district court sustained Peters-Riemers’ relevancy objections. After the hearing, the district court issued a one-year protection order against Riemers. Riemers appeals.
II
[¶ 4] Riemers first argues the district court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights and the due process rights of the parties’ son by granting Peters-Riemers’ protection order petition without allowing him to present certain testimony.
A
[¶ 5] Riemers argues the district court abused its discretion by ruling his testimony about alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers and about Riemers’ state of mind was irrelevant in deciding whether to grant Peters-Riemers’ petition for a domestic violence protection order under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02.
[¶ 6] When asked why he feared for his personal safety at the time of the confrontation, Riemers began testifying about a previous incident involving him and Peters-Riemers. Peters Riemers objected based on relevance. The district court sustained the objection. Riemers’ attorney told the court they had offered the testimony to show Riemers’ state of mind as it pertained to self-defense. The dis trict 'court reiterated the objection was sustained.
[¶ 7] Relevant evidence is evidence that reasonably and actually tends to prove or disprove any fact in issue. N.D.R.Ev. 401; Schaefer v. Souris River Telecom., 2000 ND 187, ¶ 10, 618 N.W.2d 175. We review a district court’s admission or exclusion of evidence based on relevance grounds by applying an abuse 'of discretion standard. Schaefer, at ¶ 10. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner or when it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Mellum v. Mellum, 2000 ND 47, ¶21, 607 N.W.2d 580.
[¶ 8] “Domestic violence” is defined in N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-01(2):
“Domestic violence” includes physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, or assault, not committed in self-defense, on the complaining family or household members. (Emphasis added).
Because acts committed in self-defense are statutorily excluded from the definition of domestic violence, testimony about previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers and about Riemers’ state of mind was clearly relevant because of its bearing on whether Riemers acted in self-defense. See Krank v. Krank, 529 N.W.2d 844, 850 n.2 (N.D.1995) (noting “[sjelf defense would include, where supported by the facts, the battered spouse syndrome”); see also Lovcik v. Ellingson, 1997 ND 201, ¶ 16, 569 N.W.2d 697 (“Although past abusive behavior is not dispositive, it is relevant in determining whether domestic violence is actual or imminent.”); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 713 A.2d 390, 395 (1998) (“Because a particular history can greatly affect the context of a domestic violence dispute, trial courts must weigh the entire relationship between the parties *87and ... can consider evidence of a defendant’s prior abusive acts regardless of whether those acts have been the subject of a domestic violence adjudication.”) Accordingly, the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in excluding this evidence.
[¶ 9] Under Rule 103(a), N.D.R.Ev., error may not be predicated upon the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. State v. Hart, 1997 ND 188, ¶ 21, 569 N.W.2d 451. See also N.D.R.Civ.P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). In Hart, the defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence supporting his claim of self-defense. Id. at ¶ 18. Hart attempted to testify about a statement allegedly made by an unavailable witness, and the trial com!; ruled the proffered testimony was hearsay. Id. at ¶ 19. Hart offered the statement to show his state of mind. Id. at ¶ 20. Hart’s self-defense evidence and evidence about his state of mind were admitted in other portions of his testimony. Id. at ¶ 21. Accordingly, we held the exclusion of Hart’s testimony did not affect Hart’s substantial rights and did not require reversal. Id. at ¶ 21. We reach the same conclusion here.
[¶ 10] Riemers was allowed to testify as to his state of mind:
Q At—during this altercation, did you—were you in fear for your personal safety at that point in time?
A Very much so.
When asked why he feared for his personal safety, the court sustained Peters-Riemers’ relevancy objection. However, at another point in his testimony, Riemers testified as to alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers:
A At that point she attacked me—
Q In what manner?
A Her usual manner. Starting off with tearing off my shirt, ripping it to pieces—
Q Usual manner? You mean she’s done, this in the past?
A A number of occasions. She scratched up my chest and face, she would try to kick me in the testicles and the leg or hit me any place she could. And then—
Q And this was happening this evening—that evening in question?
A Yes, it was happening that evening.
Q She attempted to kick you in the testicles?
A Yes, you see—
Q Has she done that before?
A Yes. She’s tried to rip them off at times.
Because Riemers was allowed to testify both about alleged previous incidents Of abuse by Peters-Riemers and about his state of mind, the district court’s error in excluding relevant evidence was not prejudicial and did not affect Riemers’ substantial rights. Nonprejudicial mistakes by the district court constitute harmless error and are not grounds for reversal. Huesers v. Huesers, 1998 ND 54, ¶ 11, 574 N.W.2d 880.
B
[¶ 11] Riemers argues the district court violated his and the parties’ son’s due process rights by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine Peters-Riemers about alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers.
[¶ 12] In Sandbeck v. Rockwell, 524 N.W.2d 846, 848-49 (N.D.1994), a majority of this Court held that the scope of a hearing often depends on whether the procedure is an action or a special proceeding, and that N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(1) makes it clear that a domestic violence proceeding is not a plenary action that requires a full-blown trial. Rather, the statute creates a special summary proceeding and directs a *88motion hearing noticed' by order of the court. Sandbeck, 524 N.W.2d at 849.
[¶ 13] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 43(e), for a motion “based on facts not appearing of record[,] the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct the matter be heard wholly or partly on testimony or depositions.” For the summary proceeding of a protection order, the trial court is thus authorized under the rules to hear the evidence on affidavits or partly on affidavits or, as in Sandbeck, partly on affidavits and partly by cross-examination of each affiant. 524 N.W.2d at 850.
[¶ 14] On March 6, 2000, Peters-Riem-ers filed a petition for protective relief and an affidavit supporting her petition. The district court heard the matter on Peters Riemers’ affidavit on March 14, 2000. Riemers did not submit an opposing affidavit.1 At the hearing, the district court, exercising its discretion, allowed the cross-examination of Peters-Riemers as to the contents of her affidavit. Peters Riemers did not present direct testimony in addition to her affidavit testimony. During cross-examination, Riemers’ attorney asked Peters-Riemers, “Ever hit [Riemers] in the past?” Peters-Riemers objected based on relevancy. The court sustained Peters-Riemers’ relevancy objection.
[¶ 15] In the previous subsection, we concluded testimony about alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters Riemers was relevant because of its bearing on whether Riemers acted in self-defense. However,' Peters-Riemers’ affidavit discusses only the events of the night of the confrontation, March 4, 2000, and an affair Riemers had in Honduras during the parties’ marriage. Thus, although Peters-Riemers’ testimony about alleged previous incidents of abuse by Peters-Riemers was relevant, it was beyond the scope of the affidavit. See N.D.R.Ev. 611(b) (specifying “[c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness”). We will not set aside a correct result merely because the trial court assigned an incorrect reason, if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning. Mandan Educ. Ass’n v. Mandan Public School Dist. No. 1, 2000 ND 92, ¶ 8, 610 N.W.2d 64.
[¶ 16] The district court here, exercising its discretion, also allowed Riemers to testify. After Riemers testified, the court asked Riemers’ attorney, “Do you have anything further?” Riemers’ attorney replied, “I have nothing further, Your Hon- or.” Riemers did not ask the court to allow him to call Peters-Riemers as part of his own case to question her about relevant issues beyond the scope of her affidavit. Had Riemers asked to call Peters-Riemers as an adverse witness to question her about alleged previous incidents of abuse, and had his request been denied after he had already been, forbidden to pursue these matters on cross-examination, Riemers would have been denied every possible opportunity to elicit this relevant evidence from Peters-Riemers. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 43(b) (“A party may call an adverse party ... and interrogate the witness by leading questions and contradict and impeach the witness in all respects as if the witness had been called by the adverse party, and the witness thus called may be contradicted and impeached by or on behalf of the adverse party, and may be cross-examined by the adverse party only upon the subject matter of the witness’s examination in chief.”) That almost certainly would have been an abuse of discretion, but that is not what happened in this case.
*89[¶ 17] The district court appropriately controlled the presentation of evidence during Peters-Riemers’ case, and Riemers failed to call Peters-Riemers as part of his case. The district court did not violate Riemers and the parties’ son’s due process rights..
Ill
[¶ 18] Riemers also makes several other constitutional arguments. He argues the protection order is unconstitutionally vague; the protection order deprives him of his constitutional right to free speech; chapter 14-07.1, N.D.C.C., and sections 14-05-22(3) and 14-09-06.2(1)©, N.D.C.C., are unconstitutional; and his property was taken in violation of his due process rights.
A
[¶ 19] Riemers argues the protection order is unconstitutionally vague. The protection order provides:
[Riemers] is restrained from coming within 500 yards of [Peters-Riemers’] residence at R.R. 1, Box 43, Buxton, ND, 58218, and restraining [Riemers] from coming within 100 yards of any residence in a town, city or other locality of [Peters Riemers] during the effective period of this Order.
Riemers contends the order subjects him to arrest for unwittingly intruding within 100 yards of some unknown and unknowable residence of Peters-Riemers. Riem-ers asserts that because the order does not allow him to avoid committing a criminal act, it is unconstitutionally vague.
■[13-16] [¶ 20] A statute, or injunction, is unconstitutionally vague if it “ ‘either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’ ” Fargo Women’s Health Org., Inc. v. Lambs of Christ, 488 N.W.2d 401, 409 (N.D.1992) (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926)). We stated in Fargo Women’s Health, 488 N.W.2d at 409:
The purpose of the vagueness doctrine is to ensure 'that all “be informed as to what the state commands or forbids.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939). When so informed, people have an opportunity to conform their conduct to the law, and those who enforce the law are, provided with strict guidelines for their application. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). The prohibition against overly vague laws protects people from having to voluntarily curtail First Amendment activities because of a fear those activities could be characterized as illegal activities due to an unconstitutionally vague statute. Id.
[¶ 21] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-13(4), only a willful violation of a protection order results in penalty. A person engages in “willful” conduct if he or she engages in the conduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02; see also N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-01(7) (cross-referencing definition of “willfully” in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02). Clearly, the hypothetical situation Riemers presents, in which he unwittingly intrudes within 100 yards of some unknown and unknowable residence of Peters-Riemers, would not constitute willful behavior. Riemers also'asserts he could be subjected to criminal penalties for violating the order even if Peters Riemers initiates contact. Again, Riemers ignores the culpability requirement for a protection order violation. The protection order is sufficiently specific for Riemers to conform his conduct to its strictures and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague.
B
[¶ 22] Riemers argues the protection order violates his constitutional right to free speech because it restrains him from having any contact with Peters-Riemers. The restrictions placed on Riemers’ speech are authorized by *90N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4)(a), which provides that a protection order may restrain a party from “having contact with any other person.”
[¶ 23] In Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Director of N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 2, ¶ 6, 589 N.W.2d 201 (quoting Swenson v. Northern Crop Ins., Inc., 498 N.W.2d 174, 178 (N.D.1993)), we explained:
“It is well established that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Gange v. Clerk of Burleigh County District Court, 429 N.W.2d 429, 432 n. 3 (N.D.1988). This constraint applies with particular force to a constitutional issue. Gange, 429 N.W.2d at 432 n. 3; State v. Slapnicka, 376 N.W.2d 33, 36 (N.D.1985). We therefore decline to address [the constitutional] argument.”
[¶ 24] Riemers was served the temporary protection order that included notice of the date set for the hearing. The temporary protection order stated it was authorized by chapter 14-07.1, N.D.C.C., and notified Riemers of his opportunity to explain at the hearing why a permanent domestic violence protection order should not be issued. Riemers had the opportunity to raise his First Amendment argument. Because Riemers failed to raise his constitutional challenge to N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02(4)(a) to the district court, he is precluded from raising it on appeal.
C
[¶ 25] Riemers challenges the constitutionality of chapter 14-07.1, N.D.C.C., and sections 14-05-22(3) and 14-09-06.2(l)(j), N.D.C.C. Because Riem-ers failed to properly raise these constitutional challenges to the district court, he is precluded from raising them on appeal. See Allied, 1999 ND 2, ¶ 6, 589 N.W.2d 201.
D
[¶ 26] Riemers argues his property was taken in violation of his due process rights because the district court allowed Peters-Riemers to remain in the parties’ home without allowing Riemers to testify as to his sole ownership of the property. Due process generally requires a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives the person of property. Wahl v. Morton Co. Soc. Serv., 1998 ND 48, ¶ 6, 574 N.W.2d 859. However, section 14-07.1-02(7) provides that “[n]o order or agreement under this section affects title to any real property in any matter.” Rather, the protection order merely temporarily excludes Riemers from the dwelling the parties share. See N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1 — 02(4)(b). Thus, Riemers has not been deprived of his property, and his due process argument fails.
IV
[¶ 27] Peters-Riemers argues she is entitled to an award of attorney fees under Rule 38, N.D.R.App.P. According to Peters-Riemers, Riemers is abusing the system by appealing the protection order because Riemers’ arguments are frivolous and have been made solely to cause her hardship. While some of Riemers’ arguments are “so devoid of merit that he should have been aware of the impossibility of his success on appeal,” we cannot say the same about all his assertions. See Mitchell v. Preusse, 358 N.W.2d 511, 514 (N.D.1984). Accordingly, we deny the request for costs and attorney fees.
V
[¶ 28] We affirm the district court’s order.
[¶ 29] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and JAMES H. O’KEEFE, S.J.
[¶ 30] The Honorable O’KEEFE, S.J., sitting in place of KAPSNER, J., disqualified.

. Unlike the respondent in Sandbeck v. Rockwell, 524 N.W.2d 846 (N.D.1994), Riemers was permitted to testify even though he had not previously filed an affidavit. The temporary domestic violence protection order served on Riemers staled he could appear at the hearing on March 14, 2000, to "explain why [Peters-Riemers’] request for a permanent domestic violence protection order should not be granted.”