Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah's stalking statute require proof of actual fear for civil injunctions? Bott v. Osburn Explained
Summary
Amy Bott sought a civil stalking injunction against Jessie Osburn, her husband’s girlfriend, after Osburn threatened to shoot Bott with a gun on two separate occasions during phone conversations. The trial court granted the injunction, finding that Osburn’s threats would cause a reasonable person to be afraid and suffer emotional distress.
Analysis
In Bott v. Osburn, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about what must be proven to obtain a civil stalking injunction under Utah’s amended stalking statute. The case arose from a love triangle where Amy Bott discovered her husband was having an affair with Jessie Osburn.
After learning the affair had resumed, Osburn made threatening phone calls to Bott, stating she intended to “shoot [Wife’s] ass” with a gun Bott’s husband had allegedly purchased for her. Based on these threats, Bott successfully obtained a civil stalking injunction against Osburn.
On appeal, Osburn argued that the trial court failed to find all required elements of the criminal stalking statute and misinterpreted key statutory terms including “course of conduct,” “reasonable person,” and “emotional distress.” The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the injunction.
Most significantly, the court clarified that Utah’s 2008 amendments to the stalking statute eliminated the requirement that victims prove they actually feared bodily injury or suffered emotional distress. The legislature deliberately removed language requiring proof of the victim’s actual fear or distress, adopting instead a “reasonable person” standard.
The court explained that under the current statute, a trial court need only find that the alleged stalker “intentionally or knowingly engage[d] in a course of conduct directed at [the victim]” that “would cause a reasonable person” to fear or suffer emotional distress. The court noted this change was consistent with the National Center for Victims of Crime’s model stalking code, which rejected the subjective “actual fear” standard as placing an unnecessary burden on prosecutors and victims.
For practitioners, this decision emphasizes focusing on objective evidence of threatening behavior rather than the victim’s subjective response when seeking civil stalking injunctions under Utah Code section 77-3a-101.
Case Details
Case Name
Bott v. Osburn
Citation
2011 UT App 139
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100232-CA
Date Decided
May 5, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Under Utah’s amended criminal stalking statute, a trial court need only find that the alleged stalker intentionally or knowingly engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear or suffer emotional distress, without requiring proof that the victim actually feared or was distressed.
Standard of Review
Correctness review for the proper interpretation and application of a statute, affording no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions
Practice Tip
When seeking civil stalking injunctions under Utah Code section 77-3a-101, focus on whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear or suffer emotional distress rather than proving the victim’s actual emotional state.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.