Kia Angel Barnes for self and on behalf of minor children v. Corey Holiday

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1403

Kia Angel Barnes for self and on behalf of minor children,
Respondent,

vs.

Corey Holiday,
Appellant.

Filed August 26, 2024
Affirmed; motion denied
Ross, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-22-17034

Kia Barnes, St. Paul, Minnesota (self-represented respondent)

Corey Holiday, Minneapolis, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Jesson,

Judge. ∗

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

ROSS, Judge

The district court issued two harassment restraining orders—one against appellant

Corey Holiday for harassing respondent Kia Barnes and the other against Barnes for

harassing Holiday. Because the record contains evidence supporting the district court’s

∗
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
finding that Holiday harassed Barnes, including evidence that Holiday posted a Facebook

message indicating that he had placed a $3,500 bounty on her, we affirm.

FACTS

Kia Barnes and Corey Holiday met in June 2022. The two began some sort of

arrangement concerning the repair and sale to a third party of a BMW car that Barnes

owned. After Holiday expended money and labor to repair the car, he tried unsuccessfully

to get Barnes to agree to finalize the sale, and Barnes stopped responding to Holiday’s

attempts to finalize the deal. Holiday’s communications to Barnes became “insulting,”

“demeaning,” and “accusatory.” Barnes told Holiday to stop contacting her and blocked

him from doing so on various electronic communication platforms. Holiday then began

posting disparaging messages about Barnes on social media. One of his 30 to 40 posts

included a September 2022 photo of Barnes with a caption stating, “I GOT A $3500

BOUNTY FOR MS Barnes Kia.” Barnes interpreted the post as Holiday’s offer to pay for

an attacker to assault her.

Barnes petitioned the district court in November 2022 to issue a harassment

restraining order (HRO) against Holiday, alleging that, between September and November

2022, Holiday had engaged in various allegedly harassing conduct: followed, monitored,

or pursued her; made uninvited visits to her; threatened her on 17 occasions; stole property

from her; and used her information to solicit sex acts. Holiday also petitioned the district

court, seeking an HRO against Barnes. The district court conducted a hearing on both

petitions. After receiving testimony and other evidence, the district court issued an HRO,

effective until November 17, 2024, prohibiting Holiday from harassing or having any

2
contact with Barnes or her minor children. The district court also issued an HRO against

Barnes, but the validity of that order is at issue in a different appeal before this court.

Holiday appealed and the parties filed opposing briefs. Holiday’s reply brief,

appended with documents, accused Barnes of fabricating the evidence of the bounty post

and lying during the hearing. Barnes moved this court to strike the reply brief and its

attachments, asserting that it contained evidence outside the record. An order deferred to

this panel the ruling on Barnes’s motion to strike. We now decide the motion to strike and

address the merits of the appeal.

DECISION

Holiday appears to contend that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to issue

the HRO against him. The district court may, in its discretion, issue a requested HRO if it

finds that the petitioner was subjected to harassment. See Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 2

(2022); Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 843–44 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn.

Sept. 29, 2004). Harassment includes “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts,

words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial

adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship

between the actor and the intended target.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (2022). We

will not reverse a district court’s determination that a party engaged in harassment unless

it is unsupported by sufficient evidence. Kush, 683 N.W.2d at 844. For the following

reasons, we are satisfied that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the HRO.

Applying this standard of review, we are certain that the district court acted within

its discretion here. The district court found that Holiday “posted on Facebook that he had

3
a $3500 bounty on [Barnes’s] life.” It also found that his text messages to Barnes were

numerous and unwanted and that they demonstrated an “unusual persistence” that was

“objectively unreasonable.” It characterized them as “insulting,” “demeaning,” and

“accusatory.” Holiday contends that neither the bounty post nor the text messages support

the district court’s decision to issue the HRO. His contentions are not persuasive.

Holiday does not contend that the bounty post, if genuine, would not constitute

harassment. He instead argues that the district court should not have relied on the exhibit

depicting the post because, according to him, it was “digitally manipulated.” His contested

reply brief includes what he asserts was his actual post before the alleged alteration. But

our duty on appeal is to determine whether the district court considered the evidence before

it and properly decided the relevant legal issues based on that evidence, not to judge

speculatively how the district court should have decided the case had it been given other

evidence. We therefore do not base our review on any exhibits, like those attached to and

referenced in Holiday’s reply brief, that were not submitted to and received by the district

court. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal); Thiele v. Stich,

425 N.W.2d 580, 582–83 (Minn. 1988) (emphasizing that appellate courts cannot base their

rulings on matters outside the record on appeal). Because we must base our decision on the

evidentiary record developed in the district court, we need not decide Barnes’s motion to

strike documents and assertions outside the record. The district court heard Holiday’s claim

that Barnes had provided altered evidence and is in the best position to determine

credibility and weigh the evidence. Kush, 683 N.W.2d at 843–44. The district court did not

4
credit Holiday’s assertions, and we will not reevaluate Holiday’s credibility on appeal.

Holiday has failed to establish that the HRO is unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Holiday argues that the district court should not have treated his text messages to

Barnes as harassment, maintaining that they “were strictly for the purpose of business with

regards to the vehicle.” The content of many of his text messages belies the notion that they

were “strictly” purposed for business. The messages may have begun with a business

purpose. But their tone devolved, and they more accurately seem purposed to demean

Barnes with insults like, for example, “you . . . ugly bummpy face grimey bitch,” among

other similarly sophomoric and misspelled smears not common in “business” discourse.

The record supports the district court’s characterization of the text messages as harassment.

Affirmed; motion denied.

5