Background
Maude S. Yacapsin petitioned for a stalking no-contact order against Eric Hess, alleging 20 incidents of emotional abuse involving physical acts and verbal threats. The circuit court denied her request for an emergency order and scheduled a hearing on a plenary order, which was rescheduled several times because of lack of service on Hess.
Yacapsin appeared by remote video conference at the plenary hearing, while Hess appeared in person. After hearing sworn evidence, the circuit court found that Yacapsin had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hess committed two or more qualifying acts and denied the plenary order. The court later denied Yacapsin’s motion to reconsider.
On appeal, Yacapsin argued that the circuit court misapplied the Stalking No Contact Order Act, that Hess’s conduct constituted a course of stalking behavior, and that the court misunderstood stalking dynamics. Her brief contained no citations to the appellate record, and the record included neither a transcript nor a bystander’s report of the relevant hearings.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. A petitioner must prove stalking by a preponderance of the evidence, including a course of conduct consisting of at least two acts. A circuit court’s ruling on a stalking no-contact order will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Because Yacapsin did not provide a report of proceedings or an authorized substitute from the plenary hearing, the appellate court could not determine what evidence the circuit court heard or speculate about possible errors. It therefore applied the presumption that the circuit court acted correctly. The available docket entry showed that the petition was denied for insufficient proof of two or more qualifying acts, and the appellate court concluded that the denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner seeking a stalking no-contact order must prove by a preponderance of the evidence a qualifying course of conduct involving at least two acts.
- An appellant bears the burden of supplying a record adequate to establish the claimed error, including a transcript or an authorized substitute when the hearing evidence matters.
- When the record is incomplete, an appellate court resolves resulting doubts against the appellant and presumes that the circuit court acted correctly.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that challenges to fact-dependent protective-order rulings require a record showing what testimony and evidence the trial court considered. Without that record, an appellate court generally cannot reassess the evidence or determine that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).