Opinion ID: 2567475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court must enter findings of fact regarding each element of the stalking statute before appellate review is appropriate

Text: ¶13 Utah Code section 77-3a-101 authorizes district courts to issue ex parte civil stalking injunctions and provides that `stalking' means the crime of stalking as defined in Section 76-5-106.5. [1] Section 76-5-106.5 (the stalking statute), in turn, defines stalking as follows: A person is guilty of stalking who: (a) intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person: (I) to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family; or (ii) to suffer emotional distress to himself or a member of his immediate family; (b) has knowledge or should have knowledge that the specific person: (I) will be placed in reasonable fear of bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family; or (ii) will suffer emotional distress or a member of his immediate family will suffer emotional distress; and (c) whose conduct: (I) induces fear in the specific person of bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family; or (ii) causes emotional distress in the specific person or a member of his immediate family. [2] ¶14 A district court must find that all three elements of this statute are met in order to enter a civil stalking injunction. First, the court must find that the alleged stalker intentionally or knowingly engage[d] in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or suffer emotional distress. [3] Mr. Ridgway argues that [i]mplicit in the course of conduct requirement is proximity in time between alleged stalking incidents and the absence of normal relations between the victim and the alleged stalker in the interim. We disagree. Utah Code section 76-5-106.5(1)(a) defines course of conduct as repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written threats or threats implied by conduct or a combination thereof directed at or toward a person. And repeatedly is defined as on two or more occasions. [4] The stalking statute does not speak to the timing of the incidents nor does it suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that the parties must maintain an adversarial relationship between incidents. Thus, the two or more events that constitute a course of conduct need not be proximate in time, and intervening conciliatory gestures will not preclude a court from finding a course of conduct. ¶15 Second, the court must find that the accused stalker had or should have had knowledge that the victim of his stalking would fear bodily injury or suffer emotional distress. [5] And finally, the court must find that the victim actually feared bodily injury or suffered emotional distress as a result of the accused stalker's conduct. [6] ¶16 In this case, we are unable to review the question of whether Mr. Ridgway's conduct met the elements of the statute because the district court failed to make specific findings with respect to each element of the stalking statute. Although the court properly concluded that Mr. Ridgway's actions constituted a course of conduct because there were two or more incidents and the length of time between incidents and intervening amicable relations were of no import, the court did not make a finding as to whether Mr. Ridgway intentionally or knowingly engaged in this conduct. Moreover, the court made no findings with respect to whether Mr. Ridgway knew or should have known that the Towners would fear bodily injury or suffer emotional distress. And although the court concluded that the Towners had a reasonable basis for fearing Mr. Ridgway, it made no finding that they in fact feared bodily injury or suffered emotional distress. In order for us to engage in a meaningful review of a civil stalking injunction, we must have findings on each element of the stalking statute to review. We therefore remand this case to the district court for an entry of those findings.