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 petitioner, Gary Miles, sought an order of protection against the respondents, Laurian Jaramillo and Paul Jaramillo, alleging stalking behaviors. The petitioner claimed that the respondents frequently drove down his street to access a shooting range, stopping behind trees on at least one occasion, and described an incident involving whistling and blowing kisses at a shopping center. The district court denied the petition, finding the petitioner's evidence insufficient to establish stalking as defined under the relevant statutes.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the respondents' actions constituted stalking, presenting evidence of their frequent passage by his residence and an incident of alleged harassment at a shopping center. Contended that the hearing officer erred in excluding certain documentary evidence, including an affidavit and a police report, on the grounds of hearsay.
• Respondents-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer erred in excluding documentary evidence, including an affidavit and a police report, on the grounds of hearsay.
• Whether the petitioner established sufficient grounds for the issuance of an order of protection based on allegations of stalking.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the district court's denial of the petition for an order of protection.

Reasons

• VARGAS, J., with HANISEE, J., and IVES, J., concurring:
  The court found that the hearing officer did not err in excluding the petitioner's documentary evidence as inadmissible hearsay, in accordance with Rule 11-801(C) NMRA and Rule 11-802 NMRA, which excludes police reports from the public records exception to the hearsay rule (para 3).
  The court determined that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for an order of protection under NMSA 1978, § 40-13-2(D)(1) and § 40-13-5(A), as the evidence presented did not meet the statutory definition of stalking, which requires demonstrating a pattern of conduct that would place an individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint (paras 4-5).
  The court considered the petitioner's claims of the respondents' behavior as insufficient to rise to the level of stalking, noting the infrequency of the alleged incidents and the lack of evidence indicating a legitimate fear of physical harm (para 6).
  The court also noted the district court's finding that the petitioner's motivations for seeking an order of protection appeared to be concerns about business and personal reputation rather than fear for personal safety. The court found that such concerns do not constitute a basis for the issuance of an order of protection (para 7).
  The court addressed the petitioner's contention regarding a misstatement in the district court's final order about him never feeling threatened. The court assumed the truth of the petitioner's assertion for the sake of argument but concluded that even if the district court's finding was not strictly accurate, it did not affect the outcome of the decision. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not express concern for his personal safety sufficient to warrant an order of protection (para 8).