A. R. B. v. Belliard
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
700 November 1, 2017 No. 544 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Aimee R. BELLIARD, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ernesto S. BELLIARD, Respondent-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 16SK01686; A163248 Janet A. Klapstein, Judge pro tempore. Submitted August 15, 2017. Alexander Spaulding filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 288 Or App 700 (2017) 701 PER CURIAM The trial court entered a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866 against respondent, who now appeals. He argues that petitioner failed to establish the necessary elements for obtaining an SPO. We agree with respondent and reverse. ORS 30.866 authorizes a court to issue a stalking protective order against a person if (1) the person “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in repeated and unwanted contact with [another] person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person,” (2) the other person’s alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable, and (3) the unwanted contacts caused the other person “reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of [the other person] or a member of the [other person’s] immediate family or household.” Moreover, for speech-based unwanted contacts, Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution imposes the additional requirement that the petitioner must prove that the contacts involved threats that “instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [are] unequivocal, and [are] objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303, 977 P2d 379 (1999); see also Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 Or App 445, 451, 236 P3d 798 (2010) (the Rangel constitutional analysis applies to a civil SPO). The bench, the bar, or the public would not benefit from a detailed discussion of the facts of this case. Suffice it to say that our review of the hearing transcript reveals that none of respondent’s communications described by petitioner that are within the two-year statutory period prior to the filing of the petition satisfy the constitutional requirements imposed by Rangel. Reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
