Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendant William Clayton Ballentine appealed a trial court's civil no-contact order issued against him under North Carolina General Statute Chapter 50C. Plaintiff Beverly Coble had announced her candidacy for mayor of Randleman in 2025, and Defendant created 'Anybody But Coble' social media platforms opposing her candidacy. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging Defendant harassed her online since 2022, and the trial court found Defendant's conduct unlawful under Chapter 50C. The Court of Appeals reversed the no-contact order, finding Defendant's online posts were about Plaintiff rather than directed at her, thus not constituting stalking or harassment under Chapter 50C. The Court did not need to address the First Amendment argument.
Issues
- Whether Defendant's online conduct, including Facebook posts and website content opposing Plaintiff's mayoral candidacy, constituted stalking or harassment under North Carolina General Statute Chapter 50C, which requires knowing conduct directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies and serves no legitimate purpose.
- Whether the trial court's no-contact order was supported by competent evidence and whether the findings of fact supported the conclusions of law under the applicable legal standard for civil no-contact orders.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's no-contact order against Defendant William Clayton Ballentine, finding that his online publications opposing Plaintiff Beverly Coble's mayoral candidacy did not constitute unlawful stalking or harassment under North Carolina General Statute Chapter 50C because the posts were about Plaintiff rather than directed at her.
Remedies
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's civil no-contact order against Defendant William Clayton Ballentine. The appellate court found that Defendant's online publications about Plaintiff Beverly Coble's mayoral candidacy were not directed at her and did not constitute stalking or harassment under North Carolina General Statute Chapter 50C. Consequently, the no-contact order was reversed and the case was concluded without addressing the First Amendment issue.
Legal Principles
- Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that defendant directed posts or communications at them. The court must determine whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether such findings support its conclusions of law. For a civil no-contact order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50C, the plaintiff must show unlawful conduct including stalking or harassment that is knowing conduct directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies and serves no legitimate purpose.
- North Carolina General Statute Chapter 50C governs civil no-contact orders. Stalking and harassment under this statute requires knowing conduct directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies and serves no legitimate purpose. The court distinguishes between online posts written 'about' an individual and those sent 'directly to' an individual. Online posts discussing a person are not directed at them unless there is evidence of specific targeting.
- Trial court orders are reviewed to determine whether competent evidence supports findings of fact and whether such findings support conclusions of law. This Court reviews conclusions of law de novo. The plaintiff must carry their burden in demonstrating defendant directed posts or any other communication at them. Without such demonstration, there is a lack of evidence to support a finding that defendant stalked or harassed the plaintiff.
Precedent Name
- Tyll v. Willets
- DiPrima v. Vann
- Durham Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Wallace
- Weller v. Jackson
- State v. Shackleford
Cited Statute
- North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 14
- North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 50C
Judge Name
- Judge Griffin
- Judge Wood
- Judge Arrowood
Passage Text
- Plaintiff fails to carry her burden in demonstrating Defendant directed these posts, or any other communication, at her. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to support a finding that Defendant stalked or harassed Plaintiff. Thus, we reverse the trial court's no-contact order.
- Simply, civil harassment constitutes '(1) knowing conduct (2) directed at (3) a specific person (4) that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies, and (5) serves no legitimate purpose.' Durham Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Wallace, 295 N.C. App. 440, 445, 907 S.E.2d 1, 6 (2024) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.3A(b)(2)).
- Here, Defendant posted online articles and opinions about Plaintiff and her eligibility as mayor; they were not directed to her. Even assuming Defendant was aware Plaintiff used social media, such awareness does not necessarily mean Defendant directed his online posts to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the purported purpose of 'Anybody But Coble' to aid voters buttresses the notion that Defendant's publications were directed at undecided voters in Randleman, not Plaintiff.