Sherry K. Lucas v. Jeremy P. Landry

VERSUS

JEREMY P. LANDRY

Judgment Rendered:
JAN 13 2024

ON APPEAL FROM THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION D
LAFOURCHE PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 148, 938

i• •• 11111A III, III:

Camille Saltz Babin Attorney for Defendant -Appellant
Houma, Louisiana Jeremy P. Landry

Mark D. Plaisance Attorneys for Plaintiff -Appellee
Marcus J. Plaisance Sherry K. Lucas
Prairieville, Louisiana

BEFORE: PENZATO,, GREENE., AND CALLOWAY,,' 33.

I Hon. Curtis A. Calloway, serving as judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, by special
appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

GREENE, J.

In this case, the trial court granted an Order of Protection in favor of Sherry K.

Lucas and against Jeremy P. Landry, ordering, among other relief, that Mr. Landry not

abuse, harass, assault, stalk, follow, track, monitor, or threaten Mrs. Lucas in any manner

whatsoever. Mr. Landry appeals the adverse judgment. After review, we reverse.

Stephen and Sherry Lucas live on Sugarfield Drive in Thibodaux, Louisiana. Jeremy

and Jamie Landry and their two daughters live at the end of Sugarfield Drive on a cul de

sac. It is undisputed that the Lucases and the Landrys have had an acrimonious

relationship for several years.

On December 1, 2023, Mrs. Lucas filed a Petition for Protection from Stalking

against Mr. Landry. 2 In an addendum attached to the petition, Mrs. Lucas alleged Mr.

Landry had engaged in a " nearly 8 -year terror campaign" against her and her husband.

She referenced alleged acts by Mr. Landry that she had apparently brought up at a prior

protective order hearing; alleged acts by Mr. Landry between October 6 and 17, 2023;

alleged acts by Mr. Landry on November 29 and 30, 2023; and a list of alleged " past

incidents" by Mr. Landry occurring over "the last nearly 8 years," but with no specifically

referenced dates or specific facts.

Also on December 1, 2023, Jamie Landry, Mr. Landry's wife, filed a Petition for

Protection from Stalking, on behalf of herself and her two minor daughters, against

Stephen Lucas, Mrs, Lucas's husband. The trial court consolidated the two matters for

hearing, and held the hearing on December 27, 2023, at which it heard testimony and
accepted evidence as to both petitions. At the end of the hearing, the trial court issued

protective orders against both Mr. Landry and Mr. Lucas. In a related appeal, this Court

recently affirmed the protective order against Mr. Lucas and in favor of Mrs. Landry and
her two minor children. Landry v. Lucas, 2024- 0448 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 22/ 24),

So. 3d , 2024 WL 4863403.

2 Mrs. Lucas designated her December 1, 2023 petition as a " Supplemental and Amending Petition." At a
December 27, 2023 hearing, she explained that, when drafting the petition, she had simply added to a
prior " October 6th" petition she had filed, but which the trial court had denied. At the December 27, 2023
hearing, the trial court interpreted the December 1, 2023 petition as a new petition and stated it was "just
looking at what's happened since the last hearing."
2

In the instant appeal, Mr. Landry challenges the trial court's December 27th Order

of Protection against him and in favor of Mrs. Lucas. Mr. Landry contends the trial court

erred by issuing the Order of Protection against him, because Mrs. Lucas failed to prove

that he committed acts that satisfy the definition of " stalking" as set forth in La. R. S.

46: 2172 and La. R. S. 14: 40. 2. 3

F-1: 1011

The legislature enacted the Protection from Stalking Act, La. R.S. 46: 2171, etseq.,

to provide victims of stalking a civil remedy for immediate and easily accessible protection

against perpetrators. See La. R. S. 46: 2171. Under the Act, " stalking" includes any act

that would constitute the crime of stalking under La. R. S. 14: 40. 2. La. R. S. 46: 2172.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 40. 2( A) defines stalking as follows:

Stalking is the intentional and repeated following or harassing of another
person that would cause a reasonable person to feel alarmed or to suffer
emotional distress. Stalking shall include but not be limited to the
intentional and repeated uninvited presence of the perpetrator at another
person' s home, workplace, school, or any place which would cause a
reasonable person to be alarmed, or to suffer emotional distress as a result
of verbal, written, or behaviorally implied threats of death, bodily injury,
sexual assault, kidnapping, or any other statutory criminal act to himself or
any member of his family or any person with whom he is acquainted.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 40. 2( C)( 1) defines " harassing" as follows:

Harassing" means the repeated pattern of verbal communications or
nonverbal behavior without invitation which includes but is not limited to
making telephone calls, transmitting electronic mail, sending messages via
a third party, or sending letters or pictures.

Stalking cannot consist of a single incident; the behavior, by statutory definition
as shown above, must be " repeated." See State v. Conklin, 2018-0718 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
2/ 28/ 19), 274 So. 3d 675, 681, writ denied, 2019- 00665 ( La. 10/ 8/ 19), 280 So. 3d 591

noting that stalking requires " recurring or renewed" behavior). See also Watson v.

Banguel, 2022- 01678 ( La. 1/ 25/ 23), 353 So. 3d 717 ( per curiam).

At a hearing to obtain a protective order, the petitioner must prove the allegations

by a preponderance of the evidence. Raymond v. Lasserre, 2022- 0793 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

3/ 6/ 23), 368 So. 3d 82, 88, writ denied, 2023- 00893 ( La. 10/ 31/ 23), 372 So. 3d 335. A

3 Mr. Landry also assigns error to the trial court's failure to assign expiration dates to certain orders
contained in the Order of Protection. Because we reverse the Order of Protection, we pretermit this
assignment of error.

3

petitioner meets this burden by introducing evidence, direct and circumstantial, that

shows the facts sought to be proved are more probable than not. Id. Further, this Court

cannot reverse a trial court's decision to issue or deny a protective order absent an abuse

of discretion. Id.

We now determine whether Mrs. Lucas proved the allegations of her Petition for

Protection from Stalking against Mr. Landry by a preponderance of the evidence,

providing a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Landrys acts

constituted stalking, and whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in issuing

the Order of Protection against Mr. Landry.

At the December 27, 2023 protective order hearing, Mrs. Lucas testified and began

by stating that she and Mr. Lucas had been " enduring eight years of attacks by Mr.

Landry." The trial court instructed her to limit her testimony to acts by Mr. Landry that

had occurred since a previous hearing. 4 Mrs. Lucas then testified that, on November 29,

2023, Mr. Lucas drove to a carwash and, upon his return to the neighborhood, she saw

the " Landry Tahoe" following hiM. 5 She did not identify Mr. Landry as the driver of the

Tahoe. 6 She then described an incident that occurred the next day, November 30, 2023.

She stated that, on Mr. Lucas' s return home from the grocery store, he called to tell her

that the Landry Tahoe had pulled out in front of him and was in front of him on his route

home. She went outside and saw the Tahoe make a " long, lingering stop" at the stop

sign in front of their residence and then continue on. Mr. Lucas then parked his vehicle

at their residence and they unloaded the groceries. According to Mrs. Lucas,

approximately 30 minutes later, she and Mr. Lucas were in their garage, when Mr. Landry

came " tearing around the corner," stopped his truck in front of their house, got out, and

started screaming at Mr. Lucas that he was going to kill him, and then pointed at her and

said that she was next. She then testified that sheriff's deputies arrived, physically

I
Notably, the current record contains no transcript from a prior hearing nor any evidence that may have
been introduced then.

I The Tahoe was identifiable as belonging to the Landrys because it had a personalized license plate.

6 The Tahoe side windows were tinted and apparently its occupants at any given time were not easily
identifiable from the outside.

0

restrained Mr. Landry, and put him in the back of their patrol vehicle. In connection with

her testimony, Mrs. Lucas introduced video footage ( without audio) from her home

security camera showing Mr. Landry's acts and subsequent restraint by the deputies.

Mrs. Lucas also testified that Mr. Landry had directed violent behavior at her and

Mr. Lucas " multiple times" over the last eight years, and she did not feel safe when Mr.

Landry was around. She testified that Mr. Landry had been twice charged with disturbing

the peace in events related to her and Mr. Lucas and that they had more than two dozen

police reports against Mr. Landry. She did not specify the dates of the disturbing the

peace incidents and admitted that none of the police reports were recent, because Mr.

Lucas had been out of town for 35 days prior to November 29, 2023. She also testified

that, in January 2021, she had a stroke due to the stress Mr. Landry was causing her and

that she had been in therapy for two years.' Although providing no dates, she stated

that Mr. Landry had followed both her and Mr. Lucas, had keyed both of their vehicles,

and had thrown a rock from a moving vehicle that smashed Mr. Lucas's windshield.

Mr. Lucas also testified at the December 27th hearing. He confirmed that, on

November 29, 2023, the Landry Tahoe followed him on his return home from the

carwash, but he admitted that he did not know who was driving the Tahoe at the time

and that the occupant( s) did nothing that he considered harassment, such as following

too close, horn blowing, or gesturing. He also confirmed that, on November 30, 2023,

he followed the Landry Tahoe on his return home from the grocery store, but he did not

know who was driving the Tahoe on that day either. He also corroborated Mrs. Lucas' s

testimony regarding Mr. Landry later stopping in front of their house, getting out of his

truck, screaming that he would kill Mr. Lucas, telling Mrs. Lucas that she was next, and

then being restrained by sheriff's deputies. He also explained that the deputies later told

him that Mr. Landry was the person who summoned them to the scene. During his

testimony, Mr. Lucas also referenced past alleged acts by Mr. Landry, such as falsely

reporting Mr. Lucas to law enforcement for acts Mr. Lucas did not commit, attempts by

7 The trial court declined Mrs. Lucas' s offer to provide the court with copies of letters from two of her
physicians describing her medical issues.
il

Mr. Landry to hit Mr. Lucas with the Tahoe, and screaming at Mr. Lucas after being

charged with disturbing the peace.

G. L., Mr. Landry's 17 -year-old daughter, and Mrs. Landry, his wife, also testified
8
at the December 27th hearing. Pertinently, G. L. testified that she was driving the Tahoe

on November 30, 2023, when Mr. Lucas was behind her, and she got scared and called

her father. Mrs. Landry's testimony related to her stalking claim against Mr. Lucas., not

Mrs. Lucas's claim against Mr. Landry.

After the presentation of evidence, the trial court stated that it was going to issue

protective orders against both Mr. Lucas and Mr. Landry, because the " feud" between

these two grown men had overflown and now affected their families. As to Mr. Landry,

the trial court stated that a protective order was warranted, because Mr. Landry had

clearly ... attempted to take the law into his own hands" ( by threatening the Lucases on

November 30, 2023), because he thought Mr. Lucas was stalking G. L. As to both men,

the trial court found that there had been repeated action by both directed to " the others

individuals and families."

After review, we conclude Mrs. Lucas failed to carry her burden of proving a

repeated pattern of conduct by Mr. Landry so as to satisfy the statutory definitions of

stalking" and/ or " harassing" as set forth in La. R. S. 14: 40. 2( A) and 14: 40. 2( C)( 1).

Clearly, Mr. Landry's November 30th act of threatening to kill Mr. Lucas and telling Mrs.

Lucas that she was " next" constituted behavior that would " cause a reasonable person to

feel alarmed or to suffer emotional distress." See La. R. S. 14: 40. 2( A). However, the

Landry Tahoe's following of Mr. Lucas on November 29th does not constitute evidence of

stalking by Mr. Landry, because there is no evidence that Mr. Landry was driving or

occupying the Tahoe on that day, much less that any occupant of the Tahoe was

harassing Mr. Lucas. Regarding Mr. and Mrs. Lucas' s testimony of other past acts by Mr.

Landry, we note that, other than vague allegations to " eight years of attacks," neither

Mr. or Mrs. Landry provided specific dates to establish a frame of reference for a pattern

of "repeated" conduct by Mr. Landry. Thus, Mr. Landry's November 30, 2023 threatening

8 Mr. Landry's daughter, G. L., was 17 years old when Mrs. Lucas requested the protective order; we will
refer to her by her initials. See La. R.S. 46: 1844(W).

R!

act is the only act Mrs. Lucas proved by a preponderance of the evidence at the December
27th
hearing. As earlier noted, " stalking" cannot consist of a single incident, because La.

R. S. 14: 40. 2 requires that the behavior be " repeated."

We acknowledge that the trial court was familiar with the ongoing feud between

Mr. Landry and Mr. Lucas and had apparently heard testimony and had received specific

evidence at past hearings regarding Mr. Landry's past behavior. However, our review is

limited to the record before us, which consists of evidence adduced at the December 27th

hearing. See La. C. C. P. art. 2164 ( providing that an appellate court's judgment is limited

to " the record on appeal"). That evidence contains no such specific proof regarding Mr.

Landry's past behavior.

Thus, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the December 27,

2023 Order of Protection in favor of Mrs. Lucas and against Mr. Landry based solely on

the November 30, 2023 incident.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the December 27, 2023 Order of Protection.

We assess costs of this appeal to Sherry K. Lucas.

7