Court Opinion

ID: 9855276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:14.094625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:29.092317
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of Rooks’ conviction for attempted stalking, the only offense for which Rooks was indicted. I write separately to state that I believe the evidence in cases such as this would authorize an indictment and conviction for the crime of stalking, as Rooks, by his repeated, bizarre phone calls to his ex-wife’s place of work, was “following”12 or “contacting”13 his ex-wife within the meaning of OCGA § 16-5-90. To hold otherwise would defeat the clear purpose of the stalking statute14 by permitting a stalker to intimidate and harass his intended victim simply by communicating his threats to third parties who (the stalker knows and expects) will inform the victim. A stalker should not be able to circumvent the stalking statute in this manner and obtain a lesser penalty for attempted stalking.

 “Follow” means “to go ... or come after” or “to go after in pursuit.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1961).

 “Contact” has been defined as “get[ting] in connection with.” Webster’s, supra.

 See Stubbs v. State, 193 Ga. App. 342, 343 (387 SE2d 619) (1989) (although criminal statutes should generally be strictly construed, they should not be construed so as to defeat the clear legislative intent).