Continual Attempts to Contact is Stalking

Williams v. Williams, 2013 UT App 111 Utah Court of Appeals May 2, 2013

Parties divorced and Jeri (Ex-wife) requested that Clark (ex-husband) not contact her, but to direct communications to her attorney.  Clark continued to contact her.

Jeri moved and redacted her address from court filings, Clark searched for and found her new home and sent her a text message with a picture of it.  He was contacted by the police and agreed not to contact Jeri.  In the next three months, he sent at least 16 emails to Jeri.  He sent her an envelope with two photographs of a nude woman.  Finding that he had been blocked from calling Jeri, Clark contacted the cellular phone company, impersonated Jeri, had the block removed and then called her several times.  Clark then went to Jeris’ home to confront her.  When questioned at trial about these incidents, Clark responded, “I wanted to leave no doubt in her mind how I felt.”  The trial court entered the stalking injunction.  Clark Appealed.

Clark argued that his conduct should not have caused more than mere anxiety or annoyance and it was not outrageous or intolerable.  The Court disagreed.  The Court noted that the requirement for outrageous conduct was removed in current version of the statute, however even if outrageous conduct was required, Clark’s actions are sufficient for the entry of a stalking injunction.   Particularly disturbing are his efforts to find her when she concealed her address and to unblock his cell phone calls.  Affirmed.

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/williams208050213.pdf

Incidents Constituting a Course of Conduct Need Not Occur Within a Certain Time Frame.

Butters v. Herbert, 2012 UT App. 329, Utah Court of Appeals, November 23, 2012

Butters sought and obtained a civil stalking injunction against Herbert and awarded Butters her attorney fees for the two day trial.  Herbert appealed.

In order to obtain a stalking injunction, a petitioner must show that respondent engaged in a course of conduct (two or more incidents) directed at petitioner that respondent knows or should know would cause a reasonable person fear for their or another’s safety or emotional distress.  Herbert argues that the incidents in this case are too sporadic and not outrageous enough.  Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court.

The court of Appeals found that actions in support of a stalking injunction need not occur in any specific time frame. The Court found that Herbert’s actions of speeding towards Butters in a grocery store parking lot, followed by him circling her car for several minutes is a sufficiently outrageous.  That combined with his actions of his approaching of Butters in the mall parking lot and silently staring at her is also sufficiently outrageous.  Those two actions alone are sufficient for the entry of a stalking injunction.  Particularly when coupled with the two incidents at the gym, one which he circled her car on foot, followed her inside the continued to stare at her.

This combination of incidents could cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety.

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/butters112312.pdf

Stalking Injunction: Statements About a Petitioner that Cause Reasonable Fear Are a Basis for a Stalking Injunction.

Sloane v. Brown, 2012 UT 300, Utah Court of Appeals, October 25, 2012

Sloane sought and obtained an ex parte stalking injunction against Brown.  Brown requested a hearing. 

At the hearing, the Court heard opening statements and requested that the parties stipulate to the Court considering the opening statements a proffer of the parties testimony.  The parties agreed.  Part of Sloane’s was a proffer of statements made about Sloane on Brown’s blog.  The Blog contained Brown’s summary of events including her desire to kill Sloane’s dog and her attempts to get Sloane evicted.  The Court found that Sloane had sufficiently demonstrated Brown’s course of conduct directed at her that would cause a reasonable person to fear. Brown Appealed.

Brown argued that the Court should not have accepted the proffer as testimony.  The Court of Appeals found that the Court’s action was not plain error; and if there was any error by the trial court, it was invited error because Brown agreed with the court’s consideration of the proffer. 

Brown also argued that her blog posts were protected speech and were not directed at Sloane.  The Court of Appeals found that Brown failed to submit any law that supported her position.  Finally, the law does not require that the threatening statements be made to the petitioner, but also allows for threatening statements made about an individual can also be a basis for the entry of a stalking injunction.  Affirmed.

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/slone102512.pdf

Stalking Injunctions: Fear Can the the Result of Cumulative Actions

Coombs v. Dietrich, 2011 UT App 136 (Utah Court of Appeals, April 28, 2011)

Coombs sought a stalking injunction against Dietrich (his ex-wife's new boyfriend) based on three incidents.  In the first and second incidents, Dietrich merely called Coombs names and attempted to intimidate him.  The third incident culminated in Dietrich slamming Coombs against the car and shutting his arm in the car door.  The Court granted the stalking injunction.  Dietrich appealed.  

Dietrich argued that the first two incidents would not have caused a reasonable person to fear, and the third action alone is insufficient for the entry of a stalking injunction.  The Court of appeals found that the first two incidents coupled with the third was sufficient for the entry of the stalking injunction.  The independent incidents do not need to be fear inducing to warrant a Stalking injunction, but if the cumulative effect of the incidents causes fear that is sufficient. Affirmed

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/coombs042811.pdf

Actual Fear Not a Requirement for Stalking Injunction (Reasonable Person Standard Adopted).

Bott v. Osburn, 2011 UT App 139 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 5, 2011)

Wife filed for and was granted a ex parte temporary stalking injunction.  The bases for the stalking injunction were the two telephone conversations in which Girlfriend threatened to shoot Wife.  Wife also knew that Girlfriend had purchased a gun.  The Court entered the permanent stalking injunction.  Girlfriend appealed arguing that Wife did not show she had fear of Girlfriend.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court finding that there were sufficient grounds for the stalking injection because Girlfriend had engaged in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person fear (the threats of shooting wife) and Girlfriend knew or should have known that such threats would cause a reasonable person fear.  The Court of appeals found no need for Wife to show actual fear, but that a reasonable person standard should be adopted for the purposes of entering a stalking injunction.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/bott050511.pdf

Parties Must be Permitted an Opportunity to Address the Grounds for Dismissal Before the Court May Dismiss

Osburn v. Bott, 2011 UT App 138 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 5, 2011)

Girlfriend filed for, and was awarded an ex parte temporary stalking injunction against Wife.  Wife had allegedly sent several texts, emails, voicemails, and had vandalized Girlfriend's car.  Wife had filed for a Stalking Injunction before Girlfriend.

At the time of the hearing, the judge dismissed Girlfriend's petition stating that her claims should have been and were properly addressed in the previous hearing held before a different judge which addressed Wife's petition.  Girlfriend appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded finding that the dismissal was inappropriate without providing Girlfriend an opportunity to address the alleged grounds for dismissal.  If she had been permitted to address the argument that the stalking injunction had been previously adjudicated she could have provided a transcript from the prior hearing, in which the other Judge refused to hear any evidence as to her claims because there were not before him.  Because Girlfriend was not permitted an opportunity to respond to the basis for the dismissal, she was denied due process.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/osburn050511.pdf

Before a Court Can Issue a Stalking Injunction, Respondent Must Commit At Least Two Criminal Acts

Allen v. Anger, 2011 UT App 19 (Utah Court of Appeals, January 21, 2011).

Allen sought and was granted a stalking injunction against Anger for her act of posting several posters throughout Allen’s neighborhood criticizing Allen’s choice to place her daughter in a teen ranch.  Further, Anger had encouraged and helped the same daughter seek emancipation.  The Stalking injunction was entered and Anger appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that under U.C.A. §6-5-106.5 a stalking injunction cannot be entered without a showing that the Respondent has committed at least two acts of stalking under U.C.A. § 77-3a-101.  Because in this case there has only been one act that would rise to the level of stalking (the placing of the posters), there is no grounds for the stalking injunction.  Reversed.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/allen016012111.pdf