Fourth District Court continues Koehler v. Allen stalking order hearing; judge requires petitioner present

A Fourth District Court judge on the record continued an order-to-show-cause hearing in the civil stalking matter Alicia Koehler v. Mark Stewart Allen (case no. 16O400655) after lawyers disputed whether the petitioner needed to be present and what relief the court could consider today.

The judge opened the hearing by identifying the case and explaining the limited scope of the day's proceeding: the court would consider whether the respondent had violated a civil stalking injunction entered on 05/02/2016, but not criminal convictions or other remedies outside the civil calendar. Albert Plano, appearing for petitioner Alicia Koehler, said he intended to call the respondent to testify and, if the respondent did not admit violating the injunction, to present witnesses and ask the court to find the respondent in contempt and consider sanctions including attorney fees.

Respondent counsel, identified in the record as Mr. Waite, asked the court to continue or dismiss the hearing because the petitioner was not present and because his client faces potential jail sanctions. Waite also urged the court to address the validity of the underlying injunction. Plano replied that the petitioner was not required to be present for an order-to-show-cause proceeding and that the verified filing plus respondent testimony could address the limited question before the court: whether the respondent knew of the order and willfully violated it.

The judge told counsel he would not relitigate the underlying injunction's original entry today beyond what appears in the court file and emphasized the court's baseline record shows a three-year stalking injunction entered on 05/02/2016. The judge said he was concerned that the petitioner, who Plano said was en route, was not present and that typically the person who made the allegations should be available to be cross-examined if the hearing proceeds.

After discussion about logistical alternatives, Plano said his client was about three minutes away and asked for a short recess and for the court to permit sequestration (a remote testimony room) so the petitioner could observe without being in the same physical courtroom as the respondent. The judge agreed to coordinate the sequestration room and reset the matter. He continued the hearing and scheduled it for 08:30 on Wednesday the tenth, directing counsel to confirm the sequestration arrangements with court staff and to have the petitioner available at that time.

No evidentiary rulings or contempt findings were made; the proceeding was continued. The judge noted a separate commitment and said he expected the hearing to be limited in duration.