M. Z. v. Horning

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the continuation of a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. The court held that the evidence, viewed in context, supported findings that the respondent’s conduct constituted abuse, that the petitioner reasonably feared for her physical safety, and that the respondent posed a credible threat. The court also declined to review the case de novo.

Holdings

1. The court declined to exercise discretionary de novo review because the case did not meet the established criteria for such review.
2. The evidence was sufficient to establish abuse because Horning intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed M. Z. in fear of imminent bodily injury by breaking into the home and bedroom, obtaining a firearm, placing it in his pocket in front of her, and stating that he could return whenever he wanted and would be back.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that M. Z. reasonably feared for her physical safety.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that Horning represented a credible threat to M. Z.'s physical safety, notwithstanding that the parties had separated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Horning's conduct constituted abuse under the Family Abuse Prevention Act.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that M. Z. reasonably feared for her physical safety.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Horning represented a credible threat to M. Z.'s physical safety.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals should exercise discretionary de novo review.

Disposition

affirmed