Source: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2013/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:56:42+00:00

Document:
After a jury convicted him of “three felony counts of stalking” in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-3-602(1)(b)and “three misdemeanor counts of harassment” in violation of Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-9-111(1)(e) and a judge sentenced him to “a prison sentence of twelve years”, Jerry L. Chase appealed. People v. Chase, __ P.3d __, 2013 WL 979519 (Colorado Court of Appeals 2013).
a low-income housing complex in Grand County, Colorado, where he met the three named victims in this case: G.B., D.D., and M.G. G.B. lived at Wapiti Meadows and was its property manager . . .; D.D. was its former property manager; and M.G. was the maintenance supervisor at the time. M.G. and D.D. were also husband and wife. . . .
Chase made frequent complaints to D.D., G.B., and M.G. regarding his next-door neighbors, the B. family. He complained about [their] ethnicity and alleged they were purposefully making noise to disturb him. In September 2008, Mr. B. accused Chase of putting sugar in his gas tank.
Chase was charged with criminal mischief, and the district court entered a restraining order against Chase. Chase violated the order by banging on the B. family's wall and yelling an ethnically charged threat at them.
As a result of all this, the Wapiti Meadows management G.B. posted an eviction notice on Chase’s door on October 1, 2008. People v. Chase, supra. On October 2, Chase emailed G.B. and asked her how he could fight the eviction; he also said he had “gone to Boston for a time, which G.B. knew he did every year.” People v. Chase, supra. G.B. said she could not offer any legal advice. People v. Chase, supra.
when they opened and read the six e-mails in one sitting on October 7. They . . . return[ed] to Colorado a few days later, and evidence at trial showed they believed Chase was in Colorado when he sent the e-mails. M.G. called G.B. in Colorado to warn her of the e-mails, because he feared for her safety, and she went to the Winter Park police station to open and read the six e-mails from Chase.
counts two and three of felony stalking of M.G. and D.D. must be vacated, because there was insufficient evidence to establish that Colorado had subject matter jurisdiction over those counts given that no part of the offenses against M.G. and D.D. was committed in Colorado.
As Wikipedia explains, subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power “to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding.” As it also notes, “most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.” People v. Chase, supra.
Chase also raised subject-matter jurisdiction at trial, when he moved for an acquittal. People v. Chase, supra. The trial judge denied the motion because he found that even if “M.G. and D.D. read the e-mails while . . . out of the state,” his court “had jurisdiction over those counts because it had jurisdiction over” count one, which “related to G.B.,” who “opened and read her e-mails while in Colorado.” People v. Chase, supra.
The Court of Appeals agreed “with the trial court's conclusion that it had jurisdiction over counts two and three,” but reached that “conclusion based on different reasoning from that employed by the trial court.” People v. Chase, supra.
The Court of Appeals therefore had to decide if either (i) conduct that was an element of the crime of stalking occurred in Colorado or (ii) the result of conduct in Colorado was an element of the crime of stalking. People v. Chase, supra. To determine whether either was true, it had to examine the elements of the crime of which Chase was convicted. People v. Chase, supra.
a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person's safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. Such threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear.
People v. Chase, supra (quoting § 18-9-111(4)(c)(II))) (emphasis added).
Chase, of course, argued that because “he wrote and sent the e-mails in Boston, and because M.G. and D.D. opened the e-mails in Baltimore, none of the conduct occurred in Colorado.” People v. Chase, supra. The court, though, found that the key issue was not “where the e-mails were written or read, but rather whether the result of Chase's conduct, namely, causing a reasonable person to be in fear for his or her safety, occurred, at least in part, in Colorado.” People v. Chase, supra.
(1) Chase did not know that M.G. or D.D. was in Baltimore at the time, but he knew they lived in Colorado; (2) Chase knew where M.G. and D.D. lived in Colorado; (3) M.G. and D.D. knew they would be returning to Colorado; (4) Chase lived in Colorado; and (5) the conduct Chase demanded from the victims (removing the eviction notice) necessarily had to occur in Colorado. . . .
[T]he jury could reasonably infer that Chase would have to be in Colorado to determine whether the eviction notice had been removed, and, thus, his threatened retribution against the victims would occur in Colorado.
he `was alarmed and concerned for the safety of [his] home, which was 1700 miles away, and the safety of some other people who are mentioned in the e-mail,’ including his mother and D.D.'s mother, who both lived in Colorado. M.G. called G.B. in Colorado, because he feared for her safety, encouraging her to go to the authorities and avoid Wapiti Meadows.
He called his neighbor in Colorado and asked him to `keep an eye out’ on his house and automobiles. He also called his house-sitter and warned her to not go to his house alone. D.D. testified that the e-mails were threats to her, and something could be done to her and M.G.
occurred at least partly in Colorado because he sent his email messages to e-mail addresses associated with individuals he knew to reside in Colorado. Although e-mail addresses can be accessed from any locale, as occurred here when M.G. and D.D. accessed their e-mail accounts in Baltimore, Chase used their personal e-mail addresses to communicate with individuals he knew lived in Colorado.
The court therefore found that the trial judge did not err in denying Chase’s motion challenging its subject-matter jurisdiction over the stalking charges. People v. Chase, supra. For this and other reasons, it affirmed his convictions and sentences. People v. Chase, supra.
because the threats at issue were simply posted on his personal Facebook page, the threats were not `sent’ to the alleged victims as required by the statute. Thus, he asserts, he did not violate the statute.
Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent commits a felony of the second degree. . . .
Florida Statutes § 836.10 (emphasis added).
composed and posted a statement on his personal Facebook page which threatened death or serious bodily injury. The objects of the threat were a relative of [his] and her partner. Michael O'Leary, [Timothy O’Leary’s] cousin, was a Facebook friend of [his].
As such, Michael viewed the posts on [Timothy’s] Facebook page, although it is undisputed that [he] never expressly asked Michael to view the Facebook page or the threatening post. Nevertheless, as a Facebook friend, Michael viewed the post directed towards his relative and her partner. Michael, on his own initiative, showed [Timothy’s] threatening post to his uncle. The uncle, on his own accord, informed the victims about [Timothy’s] Facebook posting.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), [O’Leary] filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the facts failed to establish a prima facie case against him under the statute. Specifically, [he] asserted that the uncontested facts established that he never sent or procured another to send any threatening message to either victim.
The State filed a traverse and demurrer in response to [O’Leary’s] motion to dismiss. While agreeing with nearly all of [his] recitation of the facts of the case, the State contended that [O’Leary’s] Facebook post constituted a `sending’ under Florida law.
heard argument from both parties on the motion to dismiss. The trial court found that [O’Leary’s] posting constituted a `sending’ under section 836.10. The trial court provided two bases for the finding.
First, the trial court noted that, at the time Michael viewed the posting, it was accessible by any member of the public who wanted to view [O’Leary’s] Facebook page. Second, the trial court found that, even if it considered the Facebook posting to have been sent only to Michael, the facts still presented a prima facie violation of the statute. The trial court observed that the posting was an electronic communication, sent to Michael (the recipient), which threatened to kill or do serious bodily harm to a member of the recipient's family.
The judge “subsequently imposed a sentence of ten years' imprisonment followed by five years of community control”, after which O’Leary appealed. O’Leary v. State, supra.
trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss under a de novo standard of review. Gresham v. State, 908 So.2d 1114 (Florida Court of Appeals 2005). As we have previously explained, `[t]he purpose of a motion to dismiss an information pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4) is to “ascertain whether the undisputed facts which the State will rely on to prove its case, establish a prima facie case, as a matter of law, so as to permit a jury to determine the defendant guilty of the crime charged.”’ Bonge v. State, 53 So.3d 1231 (Florida Court of Appeals 2011) (citation omitted).
O’Leary v. State, supra. It also noted that other districts of the Florida Courts of Appeal have adopted the same standard. O’Leary v. State, supra.
defined `sending’ as `the depositing of the communication in the mail or through some other form of delivery’ and `receipt of the communication by the person being threatened.’ State v. Wise, supra.
Here, [O’Leary] composed a threat to kill or do serious bodily injury to the victims. Consequently, resolution of this appeal turns on the question of whether [he] `sent’ the threatening message by posting it on his personal Facebook page.
by posting his message on his personal Facebook page, he, at most, published the message, which is not a violation of the statute. [O’Leary] contends that he `sent’ nothing because he neither asked anyone to view the posting on his personal Facebook page, nor addressed the posting to anyone, as would be the case with a letter or email.
The Court of Appeals did not agree, noting that “a common sense review of the facts suggests that [he] has done more than he contends.” O’Leary v. State, supra.
When a person composes a statement of thought, and then displays the composition in such a way that someone else can see it, that person has completed the first step in the Wise court's definition of `sending.’ When the threatened individual, or a family member of the threatened individual, views and receives the thoughts made available by the composer, the second step in the Wise definition is completed. At that point, the statement is `sent’ for purposes of section 836.10.
Further, Internet technologies `generally do not involve communications sent directly to another. Rather, communications are posted for the whole world to see, or, in a closed network for a particular community to see, such as a community of “Facebook friends.”’ Jacqueline D. Lipton, Combating Cyber–Victimization, 26 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1103, 1127–28 (2011).
reduced his thoughts to writing and placed this written composition onto his personal Facebook page. In so doing, the posting was available for viewing to all of [his] Facebook `friends.’ With respect to the posting in question, [O’Leary] had requested Michael O'Leary to be appellant's Facebook friend, a request that Michael accepted.
By posting his threats directed to his family member and her partner on his Facebook page, it is reasonable to presume [O’Leary] wished to communicate that information to all of his Facebook friends. Given the mission of Facebook, there is no logical reason to post comments other than to communicate them to other Facebook users.
Had [O’Leary] desired to put his thoughts into writing for his own personal contemplation, he could simply have recorded them in a private journal, diary, or any other medium that is not accessible by other people. Thus, by the affirmative act of posting the threats on Facebook, even though it was on his own personal page, [he] `sent’ the threatening statements to all of his Facebook friends, including Michael.
Michael received the composition by viewing it. As the trial court correctly ruled, at that point [O’Leary’s] violation of § 836.10 was complete, because the target of the threatening composition was a relative of the recipient.
The Court of Appeals therefore held that the prosecution “made out a prima facie case against [O’Leary] by submitting facts showing [he] composed a threat to kill or do serious bodily injury, sent that communication to another, in this case Michael O'Leary, and the communication threatened a member of the recipient's family.” O’Leary v. State, supra. It therefore affirmed the trial judge’s denial of his motion to dismiss and, in so doing, his conviction and sentence. O’Leary v. State, supra.

References: § 18
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 836
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 836
 v. 
 v.