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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment