HOULTON, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Oct. 21 vacated the judgment of a Houlton District Court judge who granted a protection from abuse order to an Aroostook County woman and her two children, saying that another woman allegedly involved in an altercation with the Aroostook County woman was not a “family or household member or dating partner” to the victim and her conduct did not constitute stalking.
The unanimous decision in the case of Krystal Gayle Caron was argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on July 30, 2014. Caron was represented by attorney Stephen Nelson of Severson, Hand and Nelson of Houlton. The Bangor Daily News is not naming the other party in the suit because it does not name victims of abuse.
According to court documents, the case began when the victim said that Caron had come into her home and hit her in September 2013. According to court documents, Caron is connected to the victim as she is the ex-wife of the victim’s boyfriend. The act resulted in criminal assault charges against Caron.
Caron’s children were at the victim’s house and one of them was ill, according to court documents. Caron and her ex-husband argued over the phone, which resulted in the victim sending Caron a text message containing “some pretty vulgar statements,” according to court documents.
Caron’s ex-husband and the two children then allegedly left the victim’s home to seek medical assistance for the ailing child. Shortly after, Caron allegedly arrived at the victim’s house. The women both testified in a court evidentiary hearing that an altercation ensued, but they disagreed about who was the initial aggressor. The victim allegedly told Caron to leave, but she refused. Caron was allegedly upset and struck the victim, who fell to the floor.
Houlton District Court Judge Bernard O’ Mara found that Caron had stalked the victim, and he entered an order of protection from abuse in October 2013, which Caron appealed.
Chief Justice Leigh Saufley, in a written statement from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, said that in order to be granted a protection from abuse order, the plaintiff must establish that the acts complained of occurred “between family or household members or dating partners or by a family or household member or dating partner upon a minor child of a family or household member or dating partner.”
She said that Caron and the victim did not meet the definition, and Caron did not argue that they did not meet the definition.
Saufley went on to say, however, that in certain circumstances, such as when someone is a victim of stalking, they can still receive the protection of abuse order. One of the definitions of stalking under the law is that a person engages in “a course of conduct” that causes a reasonable person to “suffer serious inconvenience or emotional distress,” “to fear death or to fear the death of a close relation” and more.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court felt that a course of conduct meant “two or more acts” of following, observing, harassing, tracking, threatening, communicating and surveilling the victim. The court did not feel that Caron had engaged in two or more acts against the victim.
“Although Caron’s conduct may have been criminal, it does not fall within the definition of stalking, and the court erred in concluding that it was,” Saufley said.
Nelson said that he did the appeal pro bono because he believed it was a significant legal issue he felt needed to be addressed.
“When you talk to a lay person, you think of stalking as a series of events,” he said. “But this event happened over a period of a minute or two and was still ruled as stalking. I thought the justices really gave us a greater explanation into what is stalking and what isn’t. It was a well reasoned decision, and they really dug into the past case histories as examples.”
“It is good that the law court clarified this for any future cases,” Nelson said.
The victim did not have representation at appeal.