Domestic Relations – Domestic Violence Protective Order – N.C.G.S 50B-1

There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings in the Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO).

We affirmed the trial court’s order.

In 2023, the trial court entered a DVPO in favor of plaintiff Yanli Jay against her husband, defendant Gary Jay. Defendant appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the findings made by the trial court in the DVPO. We disagreed. In its DVPO the trial court found that in May 2022, defendant committed acts towards plaintiff satisfying all three categories under G.S. 50B-1(a). The trial court found that defendant caused or attempted to cause bodily injury to plaintiff, placed her in fear as to inflict substantial emotional distress, and that defendant committed acts constituting second-degree rape under N.C.G.S. § 14-27.22. In making its findings, the trial court relied on plaintiff’s written statement attached to her initial complaint, in which she described how defendant forced her against her will to allow him to engage in rough sex with her that left her injured. The trial court attached this written statement to its DVPO as an exhibit. The trial court also considered plaintiff’s testimony at trial, in which she described the events. She described a sexual encounter with defendant which occurred that would support the granting of the DVPO, including an act of sexual intercourse with defendant against her will resulting in injury. She also testified that the sex they had was “never normal” and always took a violent form that “really hurt” her and often consisted of acts plaintiff did not want to partake in.

The trial court was presented with evidence to support the findings in the DVPO. In addition to the documentary evidence, the trial court heard testimony from both parties. Plaintiff stated that in March 2023, defendant came to her house and without her approval, took his pants off in the living room and said “he was going to have sex with [her].” Plaintiff said “No, you can’t do that[,]” but defendant “stuck his hand into [her] vagina[,]” which made plaintiff bleed. Plaintiff further stated that defendant “squeeze[d] [her] nipples[,]” which continued to hurt for two weeks. Plaintiff stated that defendant was violent “[e]very time we had the sex, it wasn’t like we were husband and wife. It was like he was venting something, and it makes – it really hurt me.” Plaintiff also testified that defendant rarely called her by her name, instead referring to her as “idiot, moron, bullshit, stupid, full of baloney.”

The trial court received evidence and heard testimony from both parties and had ample opportunity to consider the credibility of both parties. Although Exhibit 1 was determined to have been altered, the trial court specifically found that it was “not convinced that it was done by plaintiff to willfully mislead the court[,]” and even if the exhibit were entirely stricken from the record, “there is still ample evidence for the entry of the DVPO.” Based on the foregoing, we concluded that there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and order through plaintiff’s written statement and testimony at trial.

Affirmed.

Jay v. Jay (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 001-052-25, 22 pp.) (John Arrowood, J.) Appealed from Durham County District Court (James T. Hill, J.) Law Offices of Matthew Charles Suczynski, by Matthew C. Suczynski, for defendant-appellant; No brief filed for plaintiff-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals