EDWARD WERNER, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE SCHARLOP, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the injunction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination.
[1] A trial court's determination that a respondent's actions caused or created substantial emotional distress is adequately supported by evidence of repeated unwanted contac…
[2] The objective, reasonable person standard must be applied in determining whether conduct created "substantial emotional distress" for the purposes of an injunction agains…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a single date, the victim repeatedly told Werner she wanted no further contact, but Werner continued to call, write, and email her, and contacte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Protection Against Repeat Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
Edward Werner appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection against repeat violence, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s limitation of his cross-examination. We affirm.
Briefly summarized, the evidence showed that after a single date with the victim, despite her repeatedly telling Werner that she wanted no further contact with him and the passage of more than one year, Werner continued to call, write letters and send e-mails to the victim. The victim provided no encouragement to these repeated contacts. In addition, Werner downloaded information about bachelorette parties from a pornographic web site and sent it to the victim at her place of employment, an elementary school, and repeatedly tried to contact her at school, even after being told by the school resource officer not to call or visit there. We find that the evidence adequately supported the trial court’s determination that Werner’s actions caused or created “substantial emotional distress,” which is all that is required when the injunction is predicated upon repeated acts of stalking. See §§ 784.046(l)(b), 784.048(l)(a), 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2002); McMath v. Biemacki, 776 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that objective, reasonable person standard must be applied in determining whether conduct created “substantial emotional distress”). Thus, Werner’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s ruling because the victim was not threatened and had no reason to fear imminent violence is without merit.
Further, we find no error in the trial court’s limitation of Werner’s cross-examination of the victim. Werner’s cross-examination was reasonably extensive and trial judges are afforded broad discretion in controlling the scope of cross-examination, see, e.g., D.W.G. v. Department of Children & Families, 833 So. 2d 238, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); we find no abuse of that discretion here.
AFFIRMED.
STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lukacs v. Luton, 982 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…mitted at least two acts of stalking against her.”); Russell ex rel. Russell v. Hogan ex rel. Hogan, 738 So. 2d 1003, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Repeat violence is defined as two incidents of stalking or violence .... ”); see also Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding that the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the appellant’s actions caused the appellee substantial emotional distress, “which is all that is required when the injunction is predicated upon rep…
-
Alderman v. Faylene A. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…at Alderman’s actions caused her substantial emotional distress, that they served no legitimate purpose, that they were done willfully or maliciously, and that she had an objective fear that they would continue in the future. Cf. Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that respondent’s behavior caused substantial emo [*672] tional distress when he “continued to call, write letters and send e-mails to the victim” for a year, despite petitioner’s repeatedly telling him “that she w…
-
State v. Hamner, 942 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…at it prevented the defense from challenging the reliability of the victim’s claims that she told Hamner “no” and “stop.” We disagree. “[T]rial judges are afforded broad discretion in controlling the scope of cross-examination.” Werner v. Scharlop, 867 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “[Although wide latitude is permitted on cross-examination in a criminal trial, its scope and limitation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not subject to review except for a clear abuse of discreti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Menthia Faulk v. AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc., 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Stokes v. State, 776 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- D.W.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 833 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)