Grant of stalking protective order enjoining defendant from harassing, contacting, or coming near plaintiff and her family AFFIRMED, as evidence supported it; defendant contacted plaintiff via abusive emails numerous times and placed her under surveillance on several occasions without her consent and defendant ventured onto property where plaintiff worked after plaintiff told him he was no longer welcome there; frequency and nature of defendant’s contact and surveillance was sufficient to conclude that it was done for purpose of harassing and intimidating plaintiff and put her in reasonable fear for her safety; trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony regarding events that occurred more than 20 years before events at issue in this case; defendant did not show any harm in trial court’s failure to tender depositions of two of plaintiff’s coworkers into evidence; plaintiff’s need for protective order was not rendered moot due to defendant’s 14 month compliance with stalking ex-parte protective order.
From: Fulton County Daily Report (10/9/2009)
Thornton v. Hemphill, A09A1928 (09/22/09), 09 FCDR 3089
Attorneys: William H. Turner Jr., Douglas R. Ballard Jr., Jackson, Winifred Hemphill (Pro Se)
Judges: Arch McGarity, Henry Superior Court, Appellant Judges: Blackburn, Adams, Doyle