Blastic v. Holm

Petitioner sought, and was granted, a stalking protective order (SPO) against respondent. Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in considering respondent’s speech and failing to require a culpable mental state with regard to petitioner’s alarm from one of respondent’s contacts of petitioner. We disagree. Therefore, we affirm.

Petitioner and respondent, who live in the same housing development, have opposing views regarding the authority of the development’s home owners’ association (HOA). That disagreement sparked animosity between the parties and led to the contacts at issue.…