Can internet blog posts constitute stalking under Utah law? Slone v. Brown Explained

In Slone v. Brown, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether internet blog posts can constitute stalking and established important precedent regarding procedural consent in civil stalking proceedings.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a neighbor dispute between Pamela Slone and Amie Brown over Slone’s dog. After the dog escaped and Brown believed it was acting aggressively toward her children, Brown confronted Slone with threats including threatening to “kick [Slone’s] ass” and “shoot [the] dog.” Brown subsequently posted detailed blog entries describing the incident, including statements about grabbing a loaded shotgun and having “fantasy thoughts of black leather gloves with the steel shot in the knuckles.” Slone sought a civil stalking injunction based on these incidents.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the trial court properly accepted unsworn opening statements as evidence, and (2) whether Brown’s internet blog posts could constitute stalking under Utah’s criminal code, which defines the elements for civil stalking injunctions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Regarding the procedural issue, the court applied the invited error doctrine, noting that Brown explicitly consented when the trial court asked whether she objected to treating the unsworn statements as proffers of testimony. Because Brown “affirmatively consented” to the procedure, she could not later challenge it on appeal.

On the substantive stalking claim, the court found that Brown’s blog posts constituted part of a “course of conduct” under Utah Code Section 76-5-106.5. The statute explicitly includes internet communications and communications “to or about” a person. Although Brown argued the posts weren’t “directed at” Slone because they didn’t use her name, the court found the details specific enough that neighbors identified Slone as the target. The court emphasized that under the statute, intent to cause fear is not required—only that the conduct “would cause a reasonable person” to fear for their safety.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the broad scope of Utah’s stalking statute in the digital age. Internet postings can constitute stalking even when not directly sent to the target, provided they are specific enough to identify the victim and would cause reasonable fear. The case also reinforces the importance of preserving procedural objections—parties who consent to irregular procedures cannot later challenge them under the invited error doctrine.