Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

Opinion of the Court 

(“Good morning sweetheart”; “I am going to the store would
you like anything?”)—except that they were coming from a
total stranger.  3 App. 465.  Others suggested that Counter-
man might be surveilling C. W.  He asked “[w]as that you
in the white Jeep?”; referenced “[a] fine display with your
partner”; and noted “a couple [of] physical sightings.”  497 
P. 3d 1039, 1044 (Colo. App. 2021).  And most critically, a 
number expressed anger at C. W. and envisaged harm be-
falling her: “Fuck off permanently.”  Ibid.  “Staying in cyber 
life is going to kill you.”  Ibid.  “You’re not being good for 
human relations.  Die.”  Ibid. 

She  believed 

The  messages  put  C.  W.  in  fear  and  upended  her  daily 
existence. 
that  Counterman  was 
“threat[ening her] life”; “was  very fearful that he was fol-
lowing” her; and was “afraid [she] would get hurt.”  2 App. 
177, 181, 193.  As a result, she had “a lot of trouble sleeping”
and  suffered  from  severe  anxiety.  Id.,  at  200;  see  id.,  at 
194–198.  She  stopped  walking  alone,  declined  social  en-
gagements, and canceled some of her performances, though 
doing so caused her financial strain.  See id., at 182–183, 
199, 201–206, 238–239.  Eventually, C. W. decided that she 
had to contact the authorities.  Id., at 184. 

Colorado charged Counterman under a statute making it
unlawful to “[r]epeatedly . . . make[ ] any form of communi-
cation with another person” in “a manner that would cause
a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and 
does cause that person . . . to suffer serious emotional dis-
tress.”  Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §18–3–602(1)(c)  (2022).    The  only 
evidence the State proposed to introduce at trial were his
Facebook messages.1 

—————— 

1 The statute Counterman was charged with violating is titled a “stalk-
ing”  statute  and  also  prohibits  “[r]epeatedly  follow[ing], approach[ing],
contact[ing], [or] plac[ing] under surveillance” another person.  §18–3– 
602(1)(c).    But  the  State  had  no  evidence,  beyond  what  Counterman 
claimed, that he actually had followed or surveilled C. W.  For example, 
C. W. had never noticed anything of that kind.  So the prosecution based