What constitutes a course of conduct in Utah stalking cases? Butters v. Herbert Explained

In Butters v. Herbert, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when multiple incidents constitute a course of conduct sufficient to support a civil stalking injunction. The case provides important guidance on how courts analyze stalking behavior under Utah’s civil stalking statute.

Background and Facts

Aiona Butters sought a stalking injunction against Nathan Herbert after a series of confrontations spanning several years. The incidents began after a previous four-year stalking injunction protecting Butters and her sister expired in March 2009. Within a month, Herbert confronted Butters at a grocery store by speeding toward her and repeatedly circling her parked vehicle. Three months later, he approached within feet of her at a mall parking lot, silently stared at her, and continued watching from behind a pillar. Over a year later, Herbert again circled her vehicle on foot at a gym and followed her inside while constantly watching her.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether Herbert’s actions constituted a course of conduct directed at Butters under Utah Code Section 76-5-106.5, and whether such conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court emphasized that stalking analysis requires considering acts cumulatively in light of all facts and circumstances rather than viewing individual incidents in isolation. The statute defines “course of conduct” as two or more acts including approaches, confrontations, or surveillance. Here, Herbert’s pattern of circling vehicles, silent staring, and deliberate confrontations clearly satisfied this definition. Importantly, the court noted that the timing—beginning immediately after a previous injunction expired—was significant context. The court concluded that a reasonable person in Butters’s position would fear for their safety given Herbert’s history of choking her sister and the escalating pattern of confrontational behavior.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners must present stalking evidence holistically rather than as disconnected events. The cumulative analysis standard means that seemingly minor individual acts can constitute stalking when viewed together with proper context. The court’s emphasis on prior history between parties suggests that evidence of previous restraining orders, protective orders, or concerning behavior significantly strengthens stalking claims. Additionally, the decision confirms that civil stalking injunctions can include attorney fee awards that extend to appellate proceedings.