The Crime of Stalking
Columbia Southern University
Carlette Hawthorne
Criminal Law
3/7/17
Provide a brief overview of the handout
This article is a discourse on a case of the crime of stalking and it tries to evaluate what constitutes stalking as a crime. The article has it that while the court sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ probation for stalking, the appellant claimed that the evidence that was used against him was not sufficient to support that he committed the crime of stalking (“Stalking laws,” 2014). Nathan who is the appellant says that the information upon which the court used to try him did not allege that the act was done more than once. The state on the other hand claims that Nathan committed this offence more than ones and that his actions left Jennifer his ex-wife to live in fear of bodily harm or even death.
The state further claims that the communication between Jennifer and Nathan offers sufficient evidence that Nathan knew that Jennifer was afraid of his actions (Schmalleger & Hall, 2014). The constitutionality of stalking was concluded that the conduct requirement as of 1993 under the case of Long v. State was found to be vague. Even so, with the Long decision in mind the legislature convicted Nathan under Tax. Penal Code Ann.
What are the elements of the crime of stalking under the statute discussed in this case?
The element of the crime of stalking under the statute that has been discussed can be spelled out as, an offence committed by an individual on more than one occasion, and the person pursuing the conduct towards another, so that he/she knowingly engages in the conduct which includes following the person(Schmalleger & Hall, 2014). Consequently, for an action to be concluded as stalking the actor must act knowingly that their actions are casing fear or are threatening to the victim. The threat could be of bodily injury or death to the victim, bodily injury or threat to the victim’s family members or household or fear of destruction of another person’s property (Find Laws Court of Appeal, 1997). The act is also likely to cause the victim or the victim’s family or household to live in fear. Not to mention it may also leave the stalked person in fear of personal or family injury, death or destruction of property while the actor is fully aware.
Do you agree with the court of appeals that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague?
I agree with the court of appeal that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague because the statute has an objective baseline with which the victim’s complaint can be evaluated (Schmalleger & Hall, 2014). The statute gives enough notice that the prescribes the conduct as one that has to be repeated and is has to be a conduct that can be reasonably interpreted as an express threat to physical harm or life by the victim especially based on the history of the relationship(s) between the victim and the suspect (Find Laws Court of Appeal, 1997).
Moreover , by requiring specific intent in conjunction with more than one overt act, the statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is proscribed or in fact stating that requirement of specific intent does much to destroy any manner of argument that would qualify the statute is vague.
Is the evidence in this case sufficient to support a stalking conviction?
There is sufficient evidence in this case to support a stalking conviction because to begin with the language of the statue made it clear to Nathan the suspect that his actions or conduct constituted to stalking(“Stalking laws,” 2014). Again there was sufficient evidence that the appellant engaged in phone calls to his victim that he knew was capable of making his victim to fear especially because he was released and further he knew that because of the past relationship that caused the victim to fear his conduct would increase the fear making Jennifer, the victim to fear for body injury or loss of life (“Stalking laws,” 2014). The appellant was well aware of his release date and kept using it as a threat to his victim; he still called even when he knew his calls were causing the victim to fear in fact he was well aware that his contact with the victim was unwelcome.
Finally, the phone calls were sufficient evidence because they were not calls to help blend the relationship but were meant to increase the fear in her (Find Laws Court of Appeal, 1997). In summary, Nathan kept appearing in places where Jennifer was, with an intention of scaring her and also he called her to make her feel that his being out was going to be a source of fear for her life and so, with these evidence, it was clear that Nathan’s action was that which qualified as the crime of stalking.
Reference
Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal law today (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Find Laws Court of Appeals 22, T. M. 02. (1997, April 4). FindLaw’s court of appeals of Texas case and opinions. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court- of-appeals/1172781.html
Stalking laws. (2014). Retrieved March 3, 2017, from https://victimsofcrime.org/our- programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws