Pauline B. Schneider, Respondent V. Jonathan P. Ross, Appellant

stategf v/ashi:^;;.-
2013 HAR ii 	AM 10=23
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
PAULINE B. SCHNEIDER,
Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN P. ROSS,
Appellant.
No. 67256-8-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	March 11, 2013
Leach, 	C.J. 	— 	Jonathan 	Ross 	appeals 	a 	one-year 	protection 	order
restraining him from contacting Pauline Schneider and her adult child, Thomas
Jacobson. 	Ross 	claims that the 	trial court denied 	his 	right to 	a 	jury trial,
considered evidence without providing him with adequate notice, and failed to
make a proper record of e-mail evidence it considered. 	Because the Washington
Constitution 	does 	not 	provide 	a 	right 	to 	a 	jury 	trial 	in 	Domestic 	Violence
Prevention Act1 	proceedings, 	Ross did 	not preserve the evidentiary issue for
review, and the trial court made a sufficient record of the evidence it considered,
we affirm.
Background
On 	April 13, 	2011, 	Pauline Schneider filed 	a 	petition for 	an order for
protection DV [domestic violence], 	alleging specific acts of domestic violence
against her and her autistic adult child, Thomas Jacobson. 	Schneider alleged
1 Ch. 26.50 RCW.

No. 67256-8-1 / 2
that Ross pushed her against the wall a number of times, slammed doors against
her and Jacobson, punched a hole in the wall, punched his own car out of rage,
and sent 	threatening 	e-mail. 	Schneider also stated 	that Ross threatened,
verbally and through text messages, to kill himself and sent her an e-mail with his
last will and testament. 	Although Renton police responded to several of these
complaints, they did not file police reports about the incidents.
The trial court issued an ex parte temporary protection order and set a
hearing for April 27, 2011. 	On April 21, 2011, Ross's attorney filed a notice of
appearance and requested a continuance. 	At Schneider's request, the court
extended the temporary protection order through the new hearing date, May 10,
2011.
On May 6, 2011, Ross filed a declaration, stating that Jacobson created
the 	hostile environment while Jacobson was living with Schneider and 	Ross.
Ross denied ever pushing 	or shoving 	Schneider or Jacobson. 	Rather, 	he
claimed that Jacobson threatened him, which led Ross to call the police.
At the May 	10, 	2011, 	hearing, 	the trial 	court 	considered 	the parties'
testimony and 	declarations and 	court records showing a history of domestic
violence. 	The court concluded that Schneider established a reasonable fear of
domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. 	Specifically, the court
determined that the violent acts alleged, such as punching a hole in drywall and
pushing and shoving Schneider and Jacobson, led to a fear of imminent physical
harm. The court issued a one-year protection order. Ross appeals.
-2-

No. 67256-8-1 / 3
Analysis
For the first time on appeal, Ross argues that he has a constitutional right
to a jury trial in a domestic violence protection order hearing.2 We disagree.
Under the Washington State Constitution, article 1, section 21, the right to
a jury trial remains inviolate.3 	A defendant has a right to a jury trial in a civil
action that is purely legal in nature, but not in one that is purely equitable in
nature.4 	We resolve the legal or equitable character of a claim based on the
action's nature, and not its form.5
In Blackmon v. Blackmon,6 Division Two held a defendant is not entitled to
a jury trial in a Domestic Violence Protection Act proceeding 	because cases
similar 	in nature 	to 	a 	modern 	protection 	order 	proceeding 	were 	within the
exclusive jurisdiction of equity courts when the state constitution was adopted:
[Protective orders are essentially a type of injunction. 	Injunctions
are equitable in nature. 	Thus, when a person petitions the court
solely for a domestic violence protection order. . . , neither [the
petitioner] nor the party she seeks to have restrained is entitled to
have a jury decide whether a judge should issue a protection order.
We agree that a protection order proceeding is equitable in nature and hold that
the Washington Constitution does not guarantee a jury trial in Domestic Violence
2 Because the defendant's 	right to a jury trial 	involves manifest error
affecting a constitutional right, we may address this issue for the first time on
appeal. 	RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Kirkman. 159 Wn.2d 918, 926, 155 P.3d 125
(2007).
3 See also CR 38(a).
4 Auburn Mech.. Inc. v. Lvdia Constr., Inc., 89 Wn. App. 893, 897, 951
P.2d311 (1998).
5 Auburn Mech.. 89 Wn. App. at 899.
6 155 Wn. App. 715, 721, 230 P.3d 233 (2010) (citations omitted).
-3-

No. 67256-8-1/4
Prevention Act proceedings. 	Because the only relief requested was entry of a
protection order against Ross, the court properly decided the case without a jury.
Ross next contends that the trial court improperly considered as evidence
an e-mail that he wrote to Schneider, without providing him adequate notice and
an opportunity to contest the evidence. 	To preserve an evidentiary error for
appeal, a party must object to give the trial court the opportunity to prevent or
cure the error.7 	Ross did not raise this claim 	in the trial court and offers no
reason why we should review it now.8
Ross also argues that the trial court erred in failing to admit the e-mail into
evidence. 	Although he also did not preserve this issue for appeal, we note that
the trial court read the e-mail into the record and entered a finding based on it. In
its oral ruling, the court stated that the court "initially considered making this a
shorter-term order until I saw this email [sic]" and conclude[d] that "a one-year
order is appropriate in this case." 	The trial court made an adequate record of the
e-mail it considered.
Conclusion
Because the Washington Constitution provides no right to a jury trial in
Domestic Violence Prevention Act proceedings, because Ross did not preserve
7 Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 926.
8 RAP 2.5(a).
-4-

No. 67256-8-1 / 5
for review the claimed evidentiary error, and because the court made a sufficient
record of e-mail evidence it considered, we affirm.
r^tUcM, 	C 	</
WE CONCUR:
7?
-5-