AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a six-month domestic violence order of protection entered against Abelicio Gonzales, the Respondent-Appellant, in favor of his son, referred to as Child. The core of the appeal centers around conflicting testimonies regarding the nature of the interaction between Respondent and Child, specifically whether Respondent placed his hand on Child's wrist or neck, and other details surrounding the incident that led to the order of protection (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the six-month order of protection. Initially provided an incomplete and disjointed statement of evidence that generally favored him, later changing course to argue that a prior inconsistent statement made by Child was inadmissible hearsay and should not have been considered as substantive evidence (paras 2, 4).
• Petitioner-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Petitioner-Appellee in response to the appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the six-month order of protection against the Respondent-Appellant.
• Whether a prior inconsistent statement made by Child, which was unsworn, constitutes inadmissible hearsay and should not have been considered as substantive evidence (paras 2, 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Respondent's objections to the six-month domestic violence order of protection entered against him (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Kristina Bogardus, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Zachary A. Ives, Judges concurring: The Court of Appeals held that it is the sole responsibility of the trier of fact to weigh testimony, determine the credibility of witnesses, reconcile inconsistencies, and determine where the truth lies. The reviewing court does not weigh the credibility of live witnesses. The Respondent's memorandum in opposition did not provide a new or clearer statement of facts and introduced a new argument regarding hearsay that was not timely filed nor did it satisfy the requirements for amending the docketing statement to include additional issues. The Court found that the evidence presented, which included conflicting accounts of the incident, was sufficient to support the protective order as the acts found by the commissioner fell within the statutory grounds for the entry of an order of protection. The Court did not address the new hearsay contention raised by Respondent in his memorandum in opposition due to procedural deficiencies and affirmed the protective order based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented (paras 3-11).