From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boniek v. Boniek

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 25, 1989
443 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a defendant's intent to cause a victim to fear bodily injury can be inferred from other behavior where there is a history of domestic abuse

Summary of this case from State v. Schulberg
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. C9-89-171.

July 25, 1989.

Appeal from the District Court, Kandiyohi County, John C. Lindstrom, J.

Delores Boniek, Willmar, pro se.

Bradley G. Junkermeier, Willmar, for appellant.

Considered and decided by CRIPPEN, P.J., and NORTON and MULALLY, JJ., without oral argument.

Acting as judge of the court of appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2.

OPINION

NORTON, Judge.

Leo Boniek appeals from a domestic abuse protection order, claiming that evidence presented at the domestic abuse hearing was insufficient to warrant issuance of the protective order under Minn.Stat. § 518B.01 (1988). Respondent Delores Boniek failed to file her brief in a timely manner, and the case proceeded under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Delores Boniek and appellant Leo Boniek were married 25 years before their divorce on October 28, 1985. During their marriage, Leo physically and mentally abused Delores, and in 1984 she was placed in a shelter for protection. When she left the shelter, Delores had an order for protection which expired upon the parties' divorce.

After their divorce, the parties voluntarily began seeing each other on a casual basis. The parties would visit each other at their respective homes or occasionally dine out together. This informal dating relationship ended on September 20, 1988 for reasons undisclosed by the record. Delores testified that after September 20, several incidents occurred which caused her to fear for her safety. One incident involved Leo dropping off the parties' marriage certificate on Delores' doorstep. Leo delivered the certificate with a note stating that their relationship was over and that they should not see each other any more. Apparently as a symbolic gesture, Leo had cut the certificate in half with a scissors.

Another incident cited by Delores occurred in the fall of 1988 when Leo went to Delores' house unannounced. An insurance salesperson happened to be visiting Delores at that time. When Leo saw the salesperson, he became angry and violently threw the salesperson to the floor. Even though Leo did not strike or threaten to strike Delores at this time, Delores testified that the incident really scared her.

Delores also testified that Leo drove around her house on occasion, and that it made her scared and nervous. Leo admitted that the acts cited by Delores in her testimony were factually accurate. However, Leo maintained that he never intended his actions to cause Delores to fear for her safety.

ISSUE

Does the evidence warrant issuance of an order for protection pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518B.01 (1988)?

ANALYSIS

An order for protection is justified under the Domestic Abuse Act when a former spouse manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault. Minn.Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2 (1988); Kass v. Kass, 355 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection. See Hall v. Hall, 408 N.W.2d 626, 629 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 19, 1987). Leo argues that there was no evidence showing any present intent on his behalf to inflict fear of imminent physical abuse. We disagree.

Despite Leo's contentions, his behavior in this case went well beyond that exhibited in Kass. There, the only current evidence supporting issuance of a protective order was that petitioner thought she noticed her ex-husband following her while she was traveling in a car. Kass, 355 N.W.2d at 336. That evidence was insufficient to sustain the issuance of an order for protection. Id. at 337.

In comparison, Leo exhibited behavior such as to allow an inference that he intended to instill fear of physical abuse in Delores. Leo delivered the parties' marriage certificate to Delores' doorstep in a mutilated condition along with a note which read in effect, "if this is what you want, this is what you will get." Leo's physical aggression toward the insurance salesperson in Delores' presence could also be seen as an attempt by Leo to inflict fear in Delores. Even though Leo did not harm or threaten Delores at that time, Leo could have intended to intimidate Delores by his actions. In fact, Delores testified that the incident frightened her considerably.

Viewing the evidence in its totality, and in light of Leo's history of abusive behavior, sufficient evidence exists to infer a present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act.

DECISION

The trial court properly issued the protection order.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Boniek v. Boniek

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 25, 1989
443 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)

holding that a defendant's intent to cause a victim to fear bodily injury can be inferred from other behavior where there is a history of domestic abuse

Summary of this case from State v. Schulberg

holding that threats, mutilation of marriage certificate, and physical aggression in petitioner's presence, in light of past abuse, formed sufficient evidentiary basis for decision to issue order for protection

Summary of this case from In Matter of Kahler v. Lange

holding that past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is factor in determining cause for OFP

Summary of this case from In re Matter of Barona

holding present threatening behavior, viewed in light of past history of abusive behavior, was sufficient to establish present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm

Summary of this case from In Matter of Sundquist

holding "[p]ast abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection"

Summary of this case from RADER v. MIHO

concluding that the evidence, viewed in its totality, was "sufficient evidence to infer husband's present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act"

Summary of this case from Bernhagen v. Bernhagen

affirming finding of present intent where abusing party delivered a mutilated marriage certificate to abused party's doorstep and was physically violent to a third party in abused party's presence

Summary of this case from Sullivan v. Sullivan

affirming the issuance of an OFP based on a written threat and mutilation of marriage certificate, and physical aggression in petitioner's presence, in light of past abuse

Summary of this case from Ahmed v. Hassan

affirming OFP when present intent to inflict fear of harm was inferred from totality of circumstances

Summary of this case from In re Schmidt ex Rel. P.M.S

affirming issuance of order for protection where husband's "present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act" could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances

Summary of this case from In Matter of Dimitrova v. Hart

affirming the issuance of an order for protection where facts existed allowing the inference of present intent by a former spouse to inflict fear of imminent physical harm

Summary of this case from Alam v. Chowdhury

affirming issuance of OFP where facts existed to infer present intent by former spouse to inflict fear of imminent physical harm

Summary of this case from Kalamaha v. Kalamaha

explaining that, in light of the past history of abuse, the defendant's intent to cause his ex-wife to fear bodily injury could be inferred from the acts of leaving a mutilated copy of the parties' marriage license along with a note saying "if this is what you want this is what you will get," and from his physically aggressive behavior toward an insurance salesperson while in his ex-wife's presence

Summary of this case from State v. Franks

stating that witnessing a party's physical aggression toward a third-party may also be seen as an attempt to inflict fear

Summary of this case from Mokalla ex rel. A.M. v. Mokalla

In Boniek, this court affirmed an OFP when the actions of the OFP respondent "went well beyond that exhibited in Kass," and where the evidence was found sufficient to permit an inference of present intent to inflict fear of imminent physical harm. 443 N.W.2d at 198.

Summary of this case from Kopylov v. Kopylov

permitting issuance of OFP when a family or household member "manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault"

Summary of this case from Kopylov v. Kopylov

stating that an OFP is warranted when a person manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on the person's family or household member and that a history of abusive behavior is a factor in determining whether an OFP is warranted

Summary of this case from Tschida v. Hemmesch

stating that past abuse is a factor, rather than dispositive, in determining cause for protection

Summary of this case from In Matter of Roberts v. Roberts

In Boniek, the victim and abusing party were former spouses who had an "informal dating relationship," seeing each other on a casual basis, visiting at their respective homes, and occasionally dining out together. 443 N.W.2d at 197.

Summary of this case from In Matter of Wirth

In Boniek v. Boniek, 443 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. App. 1989), we stated, "Past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection."

Summary of this case from SANZ v. BIELE

viewing evidence in its totality and concluding that appellant exhibited behavior allowing inference that he intended to instill fear of physical abuse in his ex-wife

Summary of this case from Pechovnik v. Pechovnik

viewing evidence in totality and finding that appellant exhibited behavior allowing inference that he intended to instill fear of physical abuse in wife

Summary of this case from Henry v. Henry

inferring intent necessary for grant of OFP by, among other things, viewing "totality" of record

Summary of this case from In re Beach v. Beach

viewing evidence in totality and finding that appellant exhibited behavior allowing inference that he intended to instill fear of physical abuse in wife

Summary of this case from In re Reitan v. Reitan

In Boniek, the court held that an order for protection is justified under a similar Domestic Abuse Act "when a former spouse manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault.... Past abusive behavior, although not dispositive, is a factor in determining cause for protection."

Summary of this case from Strollo v. Strollo
Case details for

Boniek v. Boniek

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Delores BONIEK, Petitioner, Respondent, v. Leo E. BONIEK…

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 25, 1989

Citations

443 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Kahler v. Lange

"Domestic abuse" is defined as (1) "physical harm, bodily injury, or assault," (2) "the infliction of fear of…

Thompson ex rel. Minor Child v. Schrimsher

Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that, in the absence of ongoing physical abuse, the petitioner must show…

56 Citing Cases