C.J. v .Flores

ORS 163.763(2) provides that, to obtain a SAPO, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: ‘(A) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety with respect to the respondent; and (B) The respondent subjected the petitioner to sexual abuse.”’

Appellant challenged the continuation of a sex abuse protective order entered against him. On appeal, the Appellant assigned error to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the order. He argued that there was not sufficient evidence to find that he sexually abused Petitioner or that she reasonably feared for her safety. “ORS 163.763(2) provides that, to obtain a SAPO, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: ‘(A) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety with respect to the respondent; and (B) The respondent subjected the petitioner to sexual abuse.”’ The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the fact that Appellant did sexually abuse Petitioner at work by unhooking her bra and kissing her breast while she protested his actions. Furthermore, Petitioner testified to physical threats Appellant made as well as his stalking Petitioner at her new job. The Court thus concluded that Petitioner could reasonably fear for her physical safety based on the testimony, and both requirements of ORS 163.763(2) were met. Affirmed.