AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Kim Hooker, the Petitioner-Appellee, and Evan Miller, the Respondent-Appellant, concerning an order of protection. The Respondent, acting pro se, appealed against the district court's decision which denied his objections to the order of protection and his motion for a hearing and dismissal. The appeal highlights issues around service of process, exclusion of evidence, procedural and substantive due process, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that he was not properly served, objected to the exclusion of evidence specifically an affidavit on the basis of hearsay, claimed violation of procedural and substantive due process regarding denial of requests for continuances, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the protective order.
• Petitioner-Appellee: Supported the district court's decisions, indicating that the Respondent was properly served, the excluded affidavit was hearsay, the denial of continuances did not violate due process, and sufficient evidence was presented to support the order of protection.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent was properly served.
• Whether the exclusion of an affidavit as evidence was proper.
• Whether the denial of requests for continuances violated procedural and substantive due process.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the order of protection.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Respondent's objections to the order of protection and his motion for a hearing and dismissal.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with concurrence from Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia, provided the following reasons:
  Service of Process: The Court found no error in service, noting an affidavit of service was filed, and by not raising the issue and appearing, the Respondent waived any defects in service (paras 3-4).
  Exclusion of Evidence: The Court affirmed the exclusion of an affidavit on the basis of hearsay, as the Respondent failed to provide sufficient information to challenge this decision (para 6).
  Procedural and Substantive Due Process: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of continuances by the special commissioner and district court. It noted that the Respondent had over thirty days to retain counsel and that his inability to do so did not prejudice his case (paras 7-10).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court presumed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the protective order due to the Respondent's failure to provide a comprehensive summary of evidence presented at the lower court. It held that the evidence presented by the Petitioner at the hearing was sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent’s actions fell within the statutory definition of domestic abuse (paras 11-15).