Where a woman who was a patient at a dental office was granted an order of protection against a male dental hygienist on the basis of stalking, evidence that the man, who was significantly larger than her and had no personal relationship with her, followed her around town, expressed anger towards her for not being his Facebook friend and prevented her from pushing her shopping cart away from him was enough to support a finding that it was objectively reasonable for her to be alarmed and in fear of physical harm.
Dissenting opinion by Richter, J.: “Respondent did not provide any evidence of physical altercations or threatening behavior exhibited by Appellant. While the testimony noted Respondent was uncomfortable, this does not satisfy the statutory definition of ‘alarm,’ which requires “fear of danger of physical harm.” Section 455.010(14)(a) (emphasis added). Further, Respondent’s conclusory statements expressing fear were unsupported by additional testimony and failed to specifically mention any reason to fear physical harm. These are statutory requirements – there must be evidence presented to the Court to show a fear of danger of physical harm – to constitute stalking. That evidence is not present in this case.” Judgment is affirmed.
K.M.C. v. M.W.M. (MLW No. 70491/Case No. ED104560 – 11 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Sullivan, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Franklin County, Hoven, J. (K.M.C., pro se) (M.W.M., pro se).