From Cash v. Cash, decided Thursday by the Texas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Justice Tonya McLaughlin, joined by Justices Kevin Jewell and Maritza Antú:
After their divorce, Kimberly [Cash] asserts that Sammica [Cash] began posting personal, confidential, or humiliating information about Kimberly on her social media platforms to intimidate and harass Kimberly. Kimberly also alleges that Sammica revealed personal photos, sensitive personal information, and Kimberly’s location information on social media….
[T]he trial court issued a protective order restricting Sammica from contact with Kimberly for five years and prohibiting Sammica from engaging in harassing or threatening conduct towards Kimberly….
In relevant part, the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the trial court to issue a protective order when the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent … “on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct” that, as relevant here:
- constitutes the offense of harassment;
- causes the other person … to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended; and
- would cause a reasonable person to … feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended.
A person commits the offense of harassment “if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another” that person “publishes on an Internet website, including a social media platform, repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to cause emotional distress, abuse, or torment to another person, unless the communications are made in connection with a matter of public concern[.]” The offense of harassment also includes the repeated sending of electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another….
Kimberly testified that she has received therapy for the domestic violence she says she experienced during her marriage with Sammica. During the relationship, Kimberly contends that Sammica tracked her Apple Watch data, mocked her on Facebook Live, and deployed third parties to locate her. She introduced a report from her therapist to establish Sammica’s pattern of behavior.
Kimberly also introduced a text thread between herself and Sammica in which Sammica allegedly created a digital file of Kimberly’s medical information, including a sexual assault. Kimberly explains that Sammica was trying to intimidate her and that she ultimately shared that file with other people.
Kimberly also testified that Sammica shared her address on social media to hundreds of thousands of Sammica’s followers. [Sammica Cash is apparently a bodybuilder and fitness influencer, with >440K Instagram followers and >290K TikTok followers. -EV] Kimberly lives with her minor son and was concerned for their safety.
In addition, Kimberly testified that Sammica posted inappropriate pictures of her on Instagram that could hurt her reputation in her public job and posted recordings of their therapy sessions. Kimberly also introduced evidence that Sammica was charged with (although never arrested or convicted) harassment in Tennessee where they previously lived.
In opposition, Sammica testified that she called the police on Kimberly because Kimberly would not return Sammica’s vehicle per their agreement. Sammica claims she voluntarily left the apartment they shared because she caught Kimberly talking to a man. Sammica further testified that she started recording Kimberly because she wanted to prove that she was not a violent person or aggressive in any manner. Sammica also alleged that Kimberly was behind on her car payments and had taken advantage of Sammica’s financial generosity.
Sammica admitted to posting information on her social media platforms, but explained that she only did so because Kimberly had gone on social media with a “two-hour rant and slander of my name.” Sammica sought to establish that Kimberly had wronged her in other ways:
So at this point, I had to defend my character so that’s why I posted the videos of her admitting to everything she did. Tried to kill me. Put alcohol in my HGH syringes. You know everything that she did to me. Stole my earrings, you know, everything that she did to me. I had—the person who she confided in, I also called them and, you know, ’cause I had to defend myself at this point, Your honor. ‘Cause I’m a social media influencer and I’m one of the top 50 most influential women in America especially with my influence and my reach. So for you to slander me so people won’t come to my business is low down and it’s wrong….
Kimberly testified to multiple instances of Sammica using her social media platform to post personal, confidential or humiliating information about Kimberly. This constitutes legally sufficient evidence of a pattern of behavior consistent with the offense of harassment and that Sammica’s use of social media to target Kimberly caused Kimberly to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended.
Additionally, there was a letter included in Kimberly’s evidence from her therapist reflecting that Kimberly regularly feared physical and psychological abuse from Sammica. The therapist also noted that both women would pull and point firearms at each other.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Kimberly’s testimony and evidence were legally sufficient to establish that Sammica’s pattern of posting personal, confidential, or humiliating information about Kimberly on social media would cause a reasonable person under similar circumstances to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended…
Since the original order was based on a finding of harassment, the prohibition on harassment essentially forbids Sammica from continuing to post “personal, confidential, or humiliating information about Kimberly on social media.
