Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 368 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III
No. CV-25-326
TEALISA JOHNSON Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026 APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 04DR-25-25]
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT, APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Tealisa Johnson appeals the February 5, 2025 order of the Benton County Circuit Court dismissing her order of protection and petition for contempt against appellee Christopher Johnson. She argues that the circuit court failed to properly analyze whether domestic abuse, as defined by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-103,1 occurred. She also contends that the circuit court misinterpreted the Domestic Abuse Act (DAA) in holding that its statutory prohibitions do not apply to temporary orders of protection. We affirm.
Appellant filed a petition for an order of protection on January 7, 2025, alleging that both she and the parties’ daughter, MC, were in need of protection from appellee. In her
1
(Repl. 2020).
accompanying affidavit, she alleged that appellee had choked her on November 1, 2024, while she showered, leaving marks on her neck. She stated that she defended herself and left a gash in appellee’s neck with her fingernails. She said that on December 4, she and appellee argued after she returned home to shower after working with a patient. She stated that she accidently hit appellee with her key fob and that he subsequently grabbed the keys to her mother’s car, went downstairs, and got into the vehicle. She said she was hitting him so that he would get out of the vehicle, and he started choking her. She stated that she called 911 but that she canceled the call. According to appellant, on December 14, appellee threw five framed pictures at the bottom of the stairs as she and MC were getting ready to go walking. She said that the pictures shattered at their feet and that MC was in the doorway and witnessed everything. She stated that appellee had also made threats: on December 2, appellee threatened to kill himself multiple times; on December 4, appellee threatened to kill her if any harm came to MC; and on December 6, appellee threatened to kill her and a friend of hers. She stated that appellee has access to several guns in a gun safe and that he has two firearms in his truck. She stated that appellee is former law enforcement with the State and that she delayed making a report due to fear of retaliation. She said that she feared for her and MC’s safety.
An ex parte order of protection was filed on January 8, effective until February 5, the date of the final hearing. Appellee was served with the ex parte order on February 9. The order prohibited appellee from initiating contact with appellant, including by telephone, or using third parties to contact her. Appellee was allowed to pay the Benton County Sheriff’s
3
Office to accompany him to retrieve his clothing and personal effects from the marital residence. The ex parte order included several warnings to appellee: “It is unlawful for an individual who is subject to an order of protection or convicted of a misdemeanor or domestic violence to ship, transport, or possess a firearm or ammunition under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8) and (9) as it existed on January 1, 2019.” Appellant filed a petition for contempt on January 22 contending that appellee had contacted her since being served with the ex parte order of protection, that he has possessed firearms since he was served with the ex parte order in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-207(b)(3),2 and that he has returned to the home multiple times with officers to retrieve property from the marital home, including firearms and personal belongings, of appellant’s since being served with the ex parte order. The petition stated that appellee’s actions of
returning to the home multiple times with officers; contacting [appellant] at a new number of hers that [she] did not voluntarily give him—despite being put on notice [that] he is prohibited by the Court from contacting [appellant]; taking firearms from the home under the supervision of law enforcement; not disclosing to Rogers Police that there was an active civil order of protection against him; and carrying on his person keys to the parties’ gun safe (which could give him access to 40+ additional firearms); giving firearms to a friend/acquaintance/boss of his to keep firearms on [appellee’s] behalf (at a location not known to [appellant]) is all in violation of Ark.
Code Ann. § 9-15-207(b)(6).
Appellant alleged that these actions have created reasonable fear for her and MC, who is also protected under the ex parte order.
2 (Repl. 2020).
4
The hearing took place on February 5 as planned. Appellant testified that she and appellee had been married for thirteen years and that they share one child together, MC. She stated that she and appellee shared a residence together until he was arrested in January. She said that when appellee choked her in November, he left his hands were around her neck for three to four minutes, and she had to struggle to breathe. She stated that she did not lose consciousness but that her throat was sore for about three days. She said that she took a picture of the marks he left on her neck, and the picture was admitted into evidence. Appellant testified that MC was in the residence at the time, but she did not witness the incident. She stated that in December, she was preparing to leave for work and that she and appellee were arguing; she said that her key fob flew out of her hands and hit appellee because she was talking with her hands. She stated that appellee took the key fob and went downstairs and got into her mother’s SUV. She said she was hitting appellee to get him out of the vehicle and that appellee subsequently started choking her instead of getting out vehicle. She admitted she could have just left before getting choked but that she stayed because she wanted to protect her mother’s property. Appellant testified that she was afraid for her life because appellee had strangled her before. She said that she took a picture of the marks left on her neck following this incident, and this picture was also admitted into evidence. She stated that those were the only instances in the past six months that appellee had physically harmed her.
She testified that sometime following the car incident, she and MC were getting ready to leave because appellee’s anger was increasing. She stated that appellee removed five
5
photos from the wall and threw them downstairs while MC was present in the doorway. She clarified that she was standing at the bottom of the stairs and MC was in the doorway, which is approximately two feet from the bottom stair. She stated that the frames landed at her feet and shattered and that they could have potentially harmed MC if she had not stepped another foot in the door. She said that she was afraid for her and MC’s safety following this incident. She also stated that she could tell that MC was afraid. Appellant stated that she and MC went ahead and left to walk the dogs as planned and that appellee had cleaned up the evidence by the time they returned. She said that she reported the incident to the Rogers Police Department. Appellant stated that after this, there was no other incidents during which she was afraid for her safety except when the Rogers Police Department allowed appellee to remove weapons from the residence during a civil standby. She testified that appellee also threatened her via text messages in December––before Christmas. The text messages were admitted into evidence. In one text, appellee was accusing appellant of wearing another man’s necklace:
I promise you this, YOU WILL PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND I WILL MAKE SURE OF THAT!!!!!
Appellant also testified about a text she received after appellee had “laid hands on [her]”:
Bitch, you need to feel lucky that I did not do worse to you, your sorry [3]
ass.
3
There is no evidence of this text in the exhibits.
6
She stated that she had also received verbal threats from appellee.
Appellant stated that she and appellee own several guns, many of which are in a locked gun safe. However, she stated that there are four or five guns that are unaccounted for. She said that the ammunition for the guns is in a locked tote beside the gun safe in the garage. She stated that appellee is the only person with the keys to the gun safe and tote. She alleged that a pink glitter Glock, a turquoise Glock, a Kimber 1911, and a rifle are unaccounted for. She said that appellee came to the residence accompanied by a Rogers police officer on January 9. She stated that appellant removed two bags of clothing that belonged to her, two firearms, and her crafting machine. She said that appellee came a second time and removed his property from the garage that had been boxed up before his arrest. She stated that the only way she would feel safe was if appellee returned the guns in his possession along with the key to the gun safe and the residence. She asked that appellee be found in contempt for removing firearms from the home after he was served with the ex parte order of protection.
Appellant was asked on cross-examination whether she had been grabbed by the neck that day because her neck was red, and she testified that no one had grabbed her; her neck was red because she was having anxiety at the time. She stated that she reported all the incidents to the police on January 4. She admitted that she was the aggressor in the car incident because she hit appellee about four times on his arm and shoulder to get him out the vehicle. She conceded that this was abuse but stated that she was protecting her mother’s property. She also said that she was scared for her life. She denied throwing the key fob at
7
appellee but said that it flew while she was talking with her hand. She stated that in the picture-frame incident, appellee pitched the picture frames, and they landed on the bottom of the stairs. She said that MC was in the doorway. She testified that she took appellee’s threats as threats of imminent harm. She acknowledged that she went to Bass Pro Shop with appellee at the beginning of 2024 to sell the Kimber 1911 and the rifle. She could not say where the Glocks were being kept at the time she alleges appellee took them. She denied knowing that the glocks had been sold prior to her and appellee separating. She admitted that she did not know whether the guns were in appellee’s possession and that she would not know if they were in the gun safe because she did not have a key to the safe. She stated that she decided that MC was not safe with appellee in December because he was acting out in front of MC. She was presented with a text message dated December 31 wherein she asked appellee to take MC out for snacks that night. She admitted that it was not too dangerous for appellee to be around MC at that time. Appellant referenced an agreement between the parties in a January 3, 2025 text message. When asked about it, she stated that they had agreed on joint custody with MC. In another text message on January 4, appellant told appellee that it would be in MC’s best interest for them to share custody. She admitted that January 4 was also the date she filed the police report against appellee. She denied that she filed the report because appellee turned off her telephone service; however, she admitted that she was upset that her phone got shut off. Appellee stated that she is in a romantic relationship with Jeff Dickson. She was shown a picture of her and Dickson and stated that the picture was taken at Crystal Bridges at the end of November. She testified that she and
8
Dickson had been involved since December and agreed that it was at about that time when she started making allegations against appellee. She denied that the allegations were made to get appellee out of the house.
Appellant told the circuit court that appellee had been arrested by the Rogers Police Department for domestic violence, terroristic threatening, and endangering the welfare of a minor. She stated that the separation in January was their first separation since being married. On redirect, appellant stated that appellee had not physically abused her before November 2024 but that he had threatened her with violence before then. On recross- examination, appellant stated that she and appellee stayed in the residence together after she filed the police report and petition for an order of protection. Appellee did not move out until after his arrest on January 9. She said that she was in imminent fear of bodily harm, but she had no other choice.
Appellee testified that he was served with the ex parte order of protection on January 9 and that he first retuned to the residence the next day with someone from the Rogers Police Department supervising him. On advice of his criminal attorney, appellee did not answer any questions about the firearms. He stated that appellant gave him some clothing that belonged to her, but he denied knowing where appellant’s crafting machine was located. He said that he returned on January 16 to remove his boxes that he had previously packed up. He stated that he worked for the Arkansas Department of Corrections for twenty-nine years. When appellee was asked whether he knew that he could not possess any firearms while under an order of protection, the circuit court interrupted and stated that warning
9
number three, listed in the ex parte order, did not apply to appellee because he was only under a temporary order of protection, and the warning did not list a temporary order of protection. Appellee stated that the keys to the gun safe were put up at his home, and he denied making any copies of the keys. He said that he never had keys to the marital residence and used to enter it through the garage using a garage-door opener, which appellant has since changed.
On cross-examination, appellee testified that he last saw MC on January 8. He stated that he and appellant agreed to share joint custody of MC. He said that MC is homeschooled. Appellee told the circuit court that he was involved in homeschooling MC and that they were working on trying to get MC caught up. He said that his garage door opener did not work when he returned to the residence the second time while being accompanied by a Benton County sheriff. He stated that he could not get everything the first time because he was only allowed fifteen minutes. He said that the Benton County sheriff only gave him fifteen minutes also but that he had help with him the second time.
At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant asked that she be given a ten-year order of protection for herself and MC against appellee. She also asked that contempt as to the order of protection be reserved. Appellee asked that the contempt action be dismissed because he did not believe that a civil standby violated the order and that, as the circuit court pointed out, neither did possessing a firearm. He further argued that, in any case, appellant testified that she did not know whether appellee did possess the firearms or that he ever did.
10
Appellee also asked that the order of protection be denied because there was no imminent fear.
The circuit court found that appellee’s text thread was “just an expression of anger, probably had just seen the photograph admitted as Defendant’s Exhibit Number 4.” It stated that the texts admitted as “Defendant’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, . . . more accurately describes and is an expression of the [appellant’s] state of mind than her testimony here today.” The circuit court further found that from appellant’s “affect, demeanor, and presentation on the witness stand, it is clear that she is neither fearful of [appellee], nor is she intimidated by [him].” The circuit court dismissed appellant’s petition for an order of protection. It also dismissed the petition for contempt, stating that there was no order of the court that appellee violated. An order dismissing appellant’s petition for an order of protection and for contempt was filed on February 5. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal followed.
Our standard of review following a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 4 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. 5
4 Borland v. Borland, 2021 Ark. App. 448, 638 S.W.3d 308.
5 Id.
11
Disputed facts and determinations of witness credibility are within the province of the fact- finder.6 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo.7 As her first point on appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court failed to properly analyze whether domestic abuse, as defined by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-103, occurred. Appellant filed for an order of protection pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-2018 of the DAA. Under section 9-15-205,9 when a petition for an order of protection is filed under the DAA, the circuit court may provide relief to the petitioner upon a finding of domestic abuse. “Domestic abuse” is defined as “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members.”10 When there is no evidence that the respondent committed physical abuse or inflicted imminent fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault, it is an abuse of discretion to issue the order of protection.11 The statute includes actual physical abuse as part of its statutory definition of domestic abuse, and it also includes the imminent fear of abuse. Here, appellant testified that appellee physically abused her and presented
6 Id.
7 Hocut v. Hocut, 2022 Ark. App. 452, 655 S.W.3d 527.
8 (Repl. 2020).
9 (Repl. 2020).
10 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-103(4)(A).
11 Willhite v. Willhite, 2024 Ark. App. 147, 685 S.W.3d 329.
12
pictures that she alleged showed evidence of the abuse. However, she presented at the hearing with similar—if not the same—red marks and stated that the marks were the result of her anxiety. Appellee did not testify about any abuse he may have inflicted upon appellant. The circuit court judges the credibility of the witnesses, and it obviously did not believe appellant’s testimony that appellee physically abused her. The circuit court then looked at appellant’s demeanor on the witness stand and concluded that appellant was not fearful of appellee and that she was not intimidated by him. Appellant argues that her presentation at the hearing had nothing to do with her state of mind at the time of the alleged abuse, and she is correct. Although the circuit court gave the wrong standard for dismissing appellant’s petition for an order of protection, the evidence supports the circuit court’s dismissal. After the alleged assaults, appellant remained in the same residence with appellee, although she testified that she feared for her and MC’s life. She admitted she was the aggressor on at least one occasion and that she injured appellee once. Text messages showed that appellant wanted appellee in MC’s life, not that she feared appellee would harm MC. Additionally, she admitted that her allegations against appellee did not begin until she started having an affair with Dickson. The circuit court did not believe appellant’s testimony about fearing for her and MC’s life. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant also argues that the circuit court misinterpreted the DAA in holding that its statutory prohibitions do not apply to temporary orders of protection. Again, appellant is correct. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-207(b) requires that orders of protection contain the same warning as was found on the ex parte order of protection granted against
13
appellee. The statute does not make a distinction between temporary orders or final orders of protection. Appellant’s testimony indicated that she was unsure whether appellee had possession of any firearms or if they were just locked in the gun safe. She also admitted that two firearms listed in the contempt petition had been sold to Bass Pro Shop in 2024. Because appellant failed to present the circuit court with sufficient evidence that appellee violated the prohibition against possession of a firearm while under an order of protection, we have no choice but to affirm the dismissal of appellant’s petition for contempt.
Affirmed.
VIRDEN and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Graves Law Firm, by: Josie N. Graves; and Rojas Smith Attorneys, P.A., by: Shelby Anthony, for appellant.
One brief only.