Mary Beth Selcer v. Conner Lee Boudreaux

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 20-623

MARY BETH SELCER

VERSUS

CONNER LEE BOUDREAUX

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20204264
HONORABLE JOHN DAMIAN TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell, and D. Kent
Savoie, Judges.

REVERSED.

James Kirk Piccione
Piccione & Piccione
P. O. Box 3029
Lafayette, LA 70502-3029
(337) 233-9030
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Conner Lee Boudreaux

Mary Beth Selcer
In Proper Person
4138 Glenlake Terrace
Kennesaw, GA 30144
(404) 580-3157

EZELL, Judge.

Conner Boudreaux appeals the trial court’s grant of a protective order

against him filed by his paternal aunt, Mary Beth Selcer. For the following

reasons, we reverse.

FACTS

On September 1, 2020, Mary Beth filed a petition for protection from

stalking against her nephew, Conner. That same day, the trial court issued a

temporary restraining order. Following a September 8, 2020 hearing, an order of

protection was entered, which expires on September 8, 2021. Conner then filed the

present appeal.

DISCUSSION

Conner argues that the trial court erred in granting the protective order

without sufficient evidence. He also claims the trial court erroneously admitted

double hearsay evidence that was illogical and unreliable.

The Protection from Stalking Act, found in La.R.S. 46:2171 – 46:2174, was

enacted to provide a civil remedy for stalking victims against perpetrators, offering

immediate and easily accessible protection. La.R.S. 46:2171. Louisiana Revised

Statutes 46:2172 provides, in pertinent part, that “‘stalking’ means any act that

would constitute the crime of stalking under R.S. 14:40.2.” Louisiana Revised

Statutes 14:40.2(A)(emphasis added) defines stalking as:

[T]he 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.

“Harassing” is further defined by La.R.S. 14:40.2(C)(1) as: “[T]he 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.” “Pattern of

conduct” is then defined by La.R.S. 14:40.2(C)(2) as: “[A] series of acts over a

period of time, however short, evidencing an intent to inflict a continuity of

emotional distress upon the person.”

“At a hearing on a protective order, the petitioner must prove the allegations

of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.” Patterson v. Charles, 19-333, p. 10

(La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/19), 282 So.3d 1075, 1083. “Proof is sufficient to constitute a

preponderance of the evidence when the entirety of the evidence, both direct and

circumstantial, shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Id. (citing Head v. Robichaux, 18-366 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/18), 265 So.3d 813).

A trial court has wide discretion in granting a protective order, which an

appellate court reviews under the abuse of discretion standard. Ned v. Laliberte,

18-99 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/26/19), 277 So.3d 517.

This case centers around the care of Mary Beth’s mother, and Conner’s

paternal grandmother, who passed away the morning of the hearing. According to

the testimony at the hearing, Mary Beth moved her mother to her home state of

Georgia to care for her. After several months, her mother was sent back to live

with Conner and his father. Conner’s parents separated during the interim. Conner

stated that once his grandmother was back in Louisiana, a sitter would help them

2

care for his grandmother. He also explained that Mary Beth would come for a day

or two and then leave.

In her petition filed on September 1, 2020, Mary Beth alleged two incidents

of stalking: one on August 20, 2020, and the other on August 31, 2020. Mary Beth

alleged that on August 20, she was warned that Conner was looking for her and

had plans to hurt her, so she called the New Iberia Sheriff’s Office for assistance to

enter her mother’s house.

Conner and his mother, Donna, testified at the hearing about an event

leading up to August 20. Prior to August 20, Mary Beth asked Conner to bring his

grandmother to The Blake, a senior care facility in Lafayette where the

grandmother would be residing. Conner’s girlfriend assisted him in bringing his

grandmother to The Blake. This is when Mary Beth and Conner had an exchange

of words. Conner explained that she was mad at him for bringing a wheelchair

instead of a walker. She also began saying things to him concerning the fact that

he was adopted and not blood related and an embarrassment to the family.

Donna’s testimony at trial substantiated Conner’s story about the incident at

The Blake. Donna testified that Conner’s girlfriend taped the event showing Mary

Beth yelling at Conner. Donna explained that when Conner brought the walker

back, Mary Beth started yelling at him. Mary Beth told Conner that he was not

blood related and an embarrassment, and that he should go look for his real family.

Donna said this made Conner upset and angry with Mary Beth.

Donna further explained that when Conner’s father saw the video, he told

Conner that he needed to be understanding of his aunt. This led to an estranged

relationship between Conner and his father. Conner’s mother, a psychologist, then

suggested to Conner that they go see Mary Beth to show her the video so that she

3

could see and acknowledge her behavior. On August 20, Donna traveled with

Conner to New Iberia to the grandmother’s house where Mary Beth was located at

the time. They knocked on the door a couple of times, but there was no answer.

Conner’s mother then typed up a list of the hurtful statements verbalized by Mary

Beth to Conner and left it on the door. They never saw or talked to Mary Beth.

Mary Beth testified that on August 20 she was in New Iberia cleaning out

her mother’s house. She received a phone call from a friend who told her that her

brother had called trying to find her because her nephew was coming to New Iberia

to hurt her. The friend told her that her brother wanted to know where she was

located and let her know not to go to her mother’s house. The friend was never

identified by Mary Beth and Conner’s father did not testify at the hearing. Mary

Beth called the sheriff’s department in New Iberia, and they came and searched the

house and found no one. Mary Beth stated that there was a letter on the door of the

house. She testified that she then went to stay at a friend’s house for a few days.

This is the testimony that was objected to at trial as hearsay. The court overruled

the objection.

Subsequently, Mary Beth returned to the home where Conner and his father

were living to help care for her mother, who was now on hospice care. On August

31, Conner’s paternal uncle, Brian Boudreaux, went to visit his mother. Brian

explained that his brother told him he needed to go see his mother and when he

initially went to the house by himself, Mary Beth slammed the door in his face.

Donna offered to go with Brian to the house, and Conner went with them since he

was still living at the house.

When they arrived at the home, Mary Beth allowed them in, but told them

they could only visit for ten minutes according to hospice rules. Shortly,

4

thereafter, things got heated. Donna testified that she told Conner to videotape

Mary Beth during their visit due to her past behavior. This videotape was

introduced into evidence at the hearing. Mary Beth noticed Conner filming her.

As she is talking on the phone to her husband, calling the family idiots, and telling

him to go ahead and video her, she approaches Conner. We cannot see what

happens next. She testified she tapped the phone out of Conner’s hands. He

testified that she could have been aiming for the phone, but she hit him in the face.

He testified he pushed her away from him. He then told her not to “dare f _ _ _ _ _

g hit me you b _ _ _ h” as he was following her. She testified that he kicked her

around the house. The video just shows him following her until she turned around

and told him not to touch her, at which time he used a karate kick to the back of

her legs. Pictures in evidence show bruises on the back of her legs and right

breast. Conner admitted he has a black belt in Taekwondo.

Conner testified that he then moved out of the house because he did not want

to be around his aunt and father. This was before he was served with the protective

order.

In granting the protective order, the trial court ruled that:

Even if I accept every bit of testimony that’s critical of the
plaintiff, she was tyrant, she kept her other relatives away from her
dying mother, she slapped this telephone out of the defendant’s hand,
and she did, and what’s shown on the video she certainly doesn’t
cover herself with glory, but the fact remains is after she slapped the
phone out of the defendant’s hand he struck her, and then she started
running, and he chased her down, and he kicked her several more
times.

I think that she needs a protective order from him because he
does not know, apparently, how to resolve conflict without resorting
to his martial arts training.

5

Stalking requires specific intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress

upon a person by a series of acts. State v. Ryan, 07-504 (La.App. Cir. 11/7/07),

969 So.2d 1268. Stalking, by its very definition, cannot consist of a single incident

but must be recurring or renewed. State v. Jacks, 07-805 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/2/07),

978 So.2d 922, writ denied, 08-345 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So.2d 951.

Even if we consider the incident on August 20 as described by Mary Beth,

which Conner argues was inadmissible hearsay, we find that the trial court abused

its discretion in finding that Conner was guilty of stalking. There is no evidence

whatsoever that Conner intentionally and repeatedly followed Mary Beth.

Although Conner’s actions on August 31 were extreme and disturbing, there is no

evidence that he was stalking Mary Beth. He even immediately moved out of his

father’s house where Mary Beth was staying while in Louisiana. She obviously

was not afraid of him, as she returned to the home after August 20, knowing

Conner was living there.

For the foregoing reasons, the ruling of the trial court issuing the protective

order against Defendant, Conner Lee Boudreaux, is reversed, and the protective

order is recalled and vacated. We assess all costs of this appeal to Mary Beth

Selcer.

REVERSED.

6