In re the Matter of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0995

In re the Matter of:

Hannah Marie Lagoon,
Respondent,

vs.

Steve Lagoon,
Appellant.

Filed March 22, 2021
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-DA-FA-19-308

Hannah Lagoon, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Steve Lagoon, Cottage Grove, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
Respondent-daughter Hann ah Lagoon obtained an order for protection (OFP)
against appellant-father Steve Lagoon, based on physical a buse that occurred during her
childhood. Father challenges the OFP. He argues that the district court abused its

2
discretion by excluding certain documents fro m evidence and granting the OFP without
sufficient evidence of the alleged abuse. We affirm.
FACTS
Daughter petitioned for an OFP against father in spring 2019. She alleged that father
had physically and sexually abused her as a child, and after reporting the incidents to police
she feared he would retaliate. After an eviden tiary hearing, the district court determined
that there was insuffici ent evidence to support a finding of actual or threatened harm or
harassment in the recent past and dismissed the petition. Daughter appealed, and this court
reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court applied the incorrect legal
standard by requiring the harm or threat of harm to have o ccurred within the recent past.
Lagoon v. Lagoon, No. A19-0824, 2020 WL 522188, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Feb. 3, 2020).
Since we last considered this case, daug hter submitted an ame nded affidavit. In
addition to her initial claims, she stated that father “was manipulative, threatening, and
engaged in stalking behavior,” making her feel afraid. The affidavit also included a
detailed account of father’s alleged sexual and physical abuse. After granting an ex parte
OFP, the district court held an evidentiary hearing during which the parties testified.
Daughter described specific instances of physical abuse that she experienced during
childhood. She stated that father hit her with hard objects, causing welts and bruises, and
in one case permanently damaging her finger. Daughter also recalled father telling her that
“God had made him bigger and that’s why it was like his—he was supposed to hurt [her].”
These experiences made daughter feel afraid and trapped, and caused her to have low
self-esteem. More recently, after daughter file d the police report, father and other family

3
members contacted daughter, encouraging her to meet them or explain why she was no
longer in contact. Daughter testified that as a result of these experiences, she suffers from
posttraumatic stress disorder, severe anxi ety, and depression, and has difficulty
concentrating on schoolwork or working full-time jobs.
Father denied daughter’s allegations. After initially testifying from memory, father
began reading directly from unidentified documents. Daughter’s attorney objected. When
questioned about the documents, father explained that they included portions of the court
of appeals decision and the transcript from the previous evidentiary hearing. The district
court took judicial notice of the appellate opini on, but told father that he would have to
provide copies of all other documents he want ed to reference to daughter’s attorney and
the district court. The hearing was rescheduled to allow father time to comply.
But when the evidentiary hearing continued a week later, father only produced
copies of the specific pages he wanted to read from, not the documents in their entirety.
The district court explained that it would not admit the copies into evidence because they
were incomplete and because its decision woul d only be based on evid ence introduced at
the hearing, not at previous proceedings. Father protested, claiming that daughter already
had her own copies of the documents. He also took issue with the fact that daughter had
quoted from a document—without providing him copies—during her own testimony. The
district court reiterated that it would not allow father to quote from or introduce the
incomplete documents.
Following the hearing, the district cour t determined that past physical abuse had
occurred, but that there was insufficient evidence to conc lude that sexual abuse had

4
occurred. Because daughter had recently filed a police repor t and the fear of imminent
harm still existed, the district court granted the OFP.
Father appeals.
DECISION
Father challenges the OFP on two grounds. First, he alleges that the district court
abused its discretion by excluding the partial court documents from evidence. According
to father, the district court should have admitted those materials as a matter of justice and
fairness. Second, father claims that there was insufficient eviden ce to grant the OFP
because daughter did not provide any evidence corroborating her claims of past physical
abuse. We consider each argument in turn.
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding incomplete
documents from evidence.
Father first asserts that the district c ourt abused its discretion by excluding the
incomplete copies of prior court documents. He argues th at because the documents were
part of previous proceedings in the same ca se, which daughter presumably had the same
access to, the documents should have been admitted as a matter of fairness and justice.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings in an OFP proceeding for an abuse
of discretion. Olson ex rel. A.C.O. v. Olson , 892 N.W.2d 837, 841 (Minn. App. 2017).
The appellant bears the burden of showing that the ruling resulted in prejudicial error which
influenced the fact-finder and change d the result of the proceeding. Id. at 842. Absent
evidence that the district court misapplied the law or that its findings are not supported by
the record, we will not disturb its evidentiary ruling. Id. at 841.

5
Generally, all relevant evidence is admissi ble. Minn. R. Evid. 402. But even
relevant evidence may be excluded if the district court determines that its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the potential for undue delay, unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, or the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 403.
Here, the district court excluded the partial copies because it was unclear what larger
documents they came from. Although the documents may have been relevant, the district
court understandably could not accurately make that determination without first knowing
their context. As a result, the district cour t properly balanced the probative value of the
partial documents father offered against their potential for confusion and prejudice.
Nor did father satisfy his burden of showi ng that the district court’s ruling resulted
in prejudice. When father first attempted to quote directly from the documents, the district
court gave him clear instruc tions on how to correct his error and properly offer the
documents for admission: by making copies of the documents for both the district court
and daughter’s attorney. The district court also provided a reasonable amount of time for
father to comply with those instructions by rescheduling the hearing for the following
week. And even when fa ther failed to provide copies as in structed, the district court still
allowed father to testify to the general conten ts of those documents. In fact, the district
court encouraged father to “look at your page one and tell me what you want me to know
without reading.” Father then testified as to his position on daughter’s claims, despite not
being able to quote directly from those documents. Based on these facts, father has not
demonstrated that the district court’s ruling resulted in prejudice.

6
In sum, because the district court’s evidentiary decision wa s within its broad
discretion and, regardless, because father did not show that he was prejudiced, we conclude
that the district court acted appropriately to exclude the incomplete documents.
II. The district court did not abuse it s discretion by granting the OFP.
Father also asserts that daughter did no t present sufficient evid ence to support the
OFP. According to father, because daughter did not provide any evidence to corroborate
her claims of past harm, and because father testified that he neve r harmed daughter, the
district court should not have granted the OFP.
We review a district court’s grant of an OFP for an abuse of discretion.
Aljubailah ex rel. A.M.J. v. James, 903 N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017). The district
court abuses its discretion if it misapplies th e law or makes factual findings with no basis
in the record. Id.
Here, factual support for the district cour t’s findings abounds. Under the Minnesota
Domestic Abuse Act, the district court may gr ant an OFP if it finds that domestic abuse
has occurred. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subds. 4, 6 (2020). Domestic abuse is defined as
both physical harm and the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm committed by one
family member against another. Id., subd. 2(a)(1)-(2) (2020). Here, the district court found
that domestic abuse occurred based on the fact that daughter “credibly testified that she
was physically abused as a child by [father].” Because we do not decide issues of witness
credibility, we defer to the district court’s determination on this matter. Aljubailah,
903 N.W.2d at 643. Further, the district court appropriately considered “all of the relevant
circumstances”—including daughter’s recent police report—in deciding to grant the OFP.

7
Thompson ex rel. Minor Child v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Minn. 2018) (“[O]nce
‘domestic abuse’ has been established, the di strict court may examine all of the relevant
circumstances proven to determine whether to grant or deny the petition for an OFP.”).
And the district court found that although the domestic abuse had occurred in the past, the
fear of imminent harm still existed because daughter had only rece ntly filed her police
report. Therefore, the district court determined, the OFP was necessary.
Based on our review of the record, we conc lude that the district court did not abuse
its wide discretion by granting the OFP. The evidence supports the district court’s findings
that domestic abuse did occu r and an OFP was necessary. The district court acted
appropriately when it excluded the incomplete documents from evidence and granted the
OFP.
Affirmed.