Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit considered consolidated appeals involving protective orders issued under the Protection from Stalking Act against Steve Holloway and Stevie Holloway. The court upheld the findings that the defendants’ conduct constituted stalking, reversed the firearm-possession prohibitions because the plaintiffs were not qualifying family, household, or dating partners, and remanded for reduction of the two-year protective-order periods to the statutory maximum absent a prior contradictory hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Holloways' conduct constituted intentional and repeated following or harassing sufficient to support protective orders under Louisiana's Protection from Stalking Act.
- Whether Carter could receive protection when he was not physically present during the incident but was the intended target and the alleged conduct involved an attack on his brother.
- Whether the protective orders could prohibit the Holloways from possessing firearms absent the statutorily required family-member, household-member, or dating-partner relationship.
- Whether the trial court could impose two-year protective orders without first conducting a contradictory hearing.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Holloways engaged in stalking. The conduct consisted of three distinct acts—attacking Boykins and Henderson in the store, renewing the attack after exiting their vehicle while armed, and pursuing Boykins in their vehicle—and therefore constituted intentional and repeated following or harassing.
- The protective order in favor of Carter was properly granted because the stalking statute includes behaviorally implied threats of bodily injury against a member of the victim's family, and the evidence showed that Carter was the intended target of the Holloways' conduct.
- The trial court erred in prohibiting the Holloways from possessing firearms because the petitioners were not shown to be family members, household members, or dating partners of the Holloways, as required by La. R.S. 46:2136.3.
- The trial court improperly imposed two-year protective orders without first conducting a contradictory hearing. The orders had to be remanded for reduction to the statutory maximum fixed period of 18 months.
Key quotations
“Here, there were three distinct acts that together constituted stalking for the purposes of issuing the protective orders: (1) the Holloways attacked Boykins and Henderson in the store and then got into their truck; (2) the Holloways exited their vehicle while armed to renew their attack on Boykins and Henderson; and (3) the Holloways got into their vehicle and followed Boykins in their truck and tried to run him off the bridge.” (10-11)
“The petitioners were not family members, household members, or dating partners of the Holloways; no evidence was submitted to the court showing the presence of such a relationship.” (13)
Factual background
On January 1, 2025, Steve Holloway and Stevie Holloway confronted Kylin Boykins and Cratelyn Henderson at a store, apparently believing Boykins was his brother, Ju’Kadynn Carter. The Holloways allegedly attacked Boykins, followed the pair through the store, exited a vehicle while armed with a bat and what was believed to be a gun, and pursued Boykins after he fled in a vehicle. The trial court found that these events constituted stalking of Boykins, Henderson, and Carter, but also issued firearm prohibitions and two-year protective orders.
Procedural history
The petitioners filed protective-order petitions after an altercation at a store in Joaquin, Texas, during which the Holloways allegedly attacked or pursued Kylin Boykins and Cratelyn Henderson while armed and allegedly mistook Boykins for his brother, Ju’Kadynn Carter. The district court granted the protective orders, imposed two-year durations, and prohibited the Holloways from possessing firearms. The court of appeal affirmed the stalking determinations, reversed the firearm prohibitions, and remanded for reduction of the orders' duration to the statutory maximum absent a prior contradictory hearing.
Remand instructions
Remand for the trial court to reduce the fixed duration of each protective order to the statutory maximum allowable period under La. R.S. 46:2136(F), unless a lawful extension is later entered following a contradictory hearing. The firearm prohibitions are reversed.