Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RICKY EWING AKIN, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1246 CASSANDRA R. JACOBS, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 22, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Kenneth Friedland, Acting Circuit Judge. Gregory W. Eisenmenger, of Eisenmenger, Blaue & Peters, P.A., Viera, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Ricky
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RICKY EWING AKIN, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1246 CASSANDRA R. JACOBS, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed December 22, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Kenneth Friedland, Acting Circuit Judge. Gregory W. Eisenmenger, of Eisenmenger, Blaue & Peters, P.A., Viera, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Ricky A..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RICKY EWING AKIN,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-1246
CASSANDRA R. JACOBS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 22, 2017
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Brevard County,
Kenneth Friedland, Acting Circuit Judge.
Gregory W. Eisenmenger, of Eisenmenger,
Blaue & Peters, P.A., Viera, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Ricky Akin appeals the final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking
entered in favor of Cassandra Jacobs following an evidentiary hearing. We reverse
because there was a lack of competent substantial evidence presented to support an
injunction against stalking.
The parties previously worked in different departments at the Kennedy Space
Center. Jacobs filed a petition for injunction for protection against stalking pursuant to
section 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2016), alleging that she received harassing letters
anonymously sent through the mail over the course of the last year, her work space was
vandalized with a substance “spewed” on her chair and office equipment, and that shortly
before filing the petition, she learned through an investigation conducted by her employer
that Akin had been tracking Jacobs’ and her boyfriend’s social media pages and acquired
personal information about Jacobs and her daughter.
Stalking is the offense of “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow[ing],
harass[ing], or cyberstalk[ing] another person.” § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). By
definition, the statute requires that a petitioner allege and prove two separate instances
of stalking. David v. Schack,
192 So. 3d 625, 627–28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Roach
v. Brower,
180 So. 3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)). “Each incident of stalking must
be established by competent substantial evidence . . . .” Laserinko v. Gerhardt,
154 So.
3d 520, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting Touhey v. Seda,
133 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla.
2d DCA 2014)). In the present case, there were no allegations contained in the petition
or evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing of Akin either “following” or
“cyberstalking” Jacobs under this statute. Therefore, to obtain the instant injunction
against stalking, Jacobs had to prove at least two separate instances of being willfully
and maliciously harassed. The term “harass” is defined in this statute as to “engage in a
course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional
distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
(2016). Furthermore, “[i]n determining whether each incident of harassment [has caused]
‘substantial emotional distress’ . . . to support a finding of stalking, ‘courts use a
2
reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard.’” Plummer v. Forget,
164 So. 3d
109, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting Laserinko,
154 So. 3d at 521–22).
Jacobs’ evidence at the hearing was lacking. Notably, none of the letters that
Jacobs alleged to have been sent by Akin were admitted into evidence. Also, Jacobs did
not testify to suffering substantial emotional distress. See Klemple v. Gagliano,
197 So.
3d 1283, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding the evidence insufficient to constitute the
“harassment” prong under the statute where petitioner did not testify to any emotional
distress). Jacobs did call one witness to testify, an investigator employed by Kennedy
Space Center who investigated Jacobs’ separate complaint that she filed with her
employer against Akin on these allegations. Much of this witness’s testimony concerned
a videotape, letters, and a report that he reviewed but did not prepare, none of which
were admitted into evidence. Akin’s counsel interposed hearsay and best evidence rule
objections to much of this witness’s testimony, which the trial court incorrectly overruled.
An injunction cannot be based on hearsay evidence. See
id. at 1286. Finally, the
evidence presented at the hearing that Akin may have smeared tuna fish on Jacobs’ work
station was speculative. See Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant St. Grp., Inc.,
82 So. 3d
1056, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Speculative testimony is not competent substantial
evidence.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against
stalking, with directions to dismiss the petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., AND EVANDER, J., concur.
LAMBERT, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
3
LAMBERT, J., concurring and concurring specially, with opinion. 5D17-1246
I concur with the majority opinion. The result of this appeal may well have been
different if the letters that Jacobs asserts were regularly sent to her by Akin were actually
admitted into evidence.1 Because the letters were not actually admitted into evidence,
there was no competent evidence in the record about the content of the letters or how
they would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Moreover,
and as pointed out in the majority opinion, there is no actual testimony or evidence from
Jacobs or her witness that Jacobs suffered from emotional distress, let alone substantial
emotional distress as required by section 784.048(2). Simply put, Jacobs, an
unrepresented litigant, failed to meet her evidentiary burden of proving stalking with
competent substantial evidence.
I write to address a separate issue mentioned briefly by Akin in his appellate brief.
Akin contends that the trial court’s “active participation” in the case violated his right to
due process, speculating that the nature of the court’s involvement was possibly due to
Akin being represented by counsel and Jacobs being unrepresented. Akin made no
further argument in his brief on this issue nor, for that matter, raised an objection below
to what he now contends were the trial court’s improprieties, thus waiving the issue for
appellate review. See Johnson v. State,
114 So. 3d 1012, 1013–14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
(“In order to preserve improprieties of a trial judge for appellate review, an objection must
be made contemporaneously with the prejudicial conduct or comments.”). Nevertheless,
Akin’s observation bears some mention.
1 Jacobs’ petition indicates that Akin was also arrested regarding the allegations in
the petition. That criminal prosecution is not affected by our decision in this appeal.
4
Preliminarily, neither Jacobs nor Akin was required to be represented by counsel
in this proceeding. See § 784.0485(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“[A] cause of action for an
injunction [against stalking] does not require a party to be represented by an attorney.”).
Moreover, as to unrepresented petitioners, judges are encouraged to assist them in
understanding the process of obtaining these type of injunctions and not to employ an
unduly rigid approach so as to impede a pro se litigant’s ability to obtain this relief. See
In re Eriksson,
36 So. 3d 580, 593–94 (Fla. 2010). Here, however, the trial judge did
more than simply assist Jacobs in understanding the process of pursuing this injunction.
Jacobs was the first witness at the hearing, and the trial judge asked her every question,
including many that led to objections being raised by Akin’s counsel. When Jacobs’ only
other witness was called to testify, the judge asked every question of this witness. Finally,
after Akin’s counsel cross-examined this witness, Jacobs came back on the stand, and
the judge again asked her all of the remaining questions, eliciting information that
arguably assisted Jacobs in obtaining her injunction.
A trial judge serves as a neutral arbiter in proceedings. Chastine v. Broome,
629
So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). “While it is permissible for a trial judge to ask
questions deemed necessary to clear up uncertainties as to issues that appear to require
it,” Asbury v. State,
765 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting J.F. v. State,
718
So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)), the judge “must not enter the fray by giving ‘tips’
to either side.”
Id. (quoting Chastine, 629 So. 2d at 295). In my view, the trial judge in
this case went far beyond simply “clearing up” issues and instead became an active
participant in the proceedings below, thus casting a shadow upon the fairness of the
proceeding. And while I am confident that the trial judge had no improper motive and
5
further recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has encouraged trial judges to provide
some assistance to pro se litigants to help them understand the process, trial judges
should nevertheless be wary of becoming advocates for the pro se party to the detriment
of the opposing party who is represented by counsel, thereby placing the represented
party in the untenable position of appearing before a trial judge who seemingly helps the
pro se litigant prove his or her case.
6