What constitutes a course of conduct under Utah's stalking statute? State v. Bingham Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Bingham addressed what evidence is sufficient to establish a course of conduct under Utah’s stalking statute. The case provides important guidance on how courts analyze multiple incidents to determine whether they collectively satisfy the statutory elements.

Background and Facts

Following his separation from his wife, Stephen Bingham engaged in three incidents over approximately one week. First, he threw his wife’s belongings in a pile in their kitchen and sent her a text message telling her to retrieve her “crap.” Second, he appeared at her workplace, refused to leave when asked, and told her he would follow her, requiring security to escort her to her car. Third, within seven minutes of his wife signing a lease for a new apartment, Bingham appeared at the location on his motorcycle.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether these three incidents constituted a course of conduct under Utah Code section 76-5-106.5, which requires “two or more acts directed at or toward a specific person” that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress. Bingham challenged the sufficiency of evidence and argued that some conduct occurred in public places where he had a right to be.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the clear weight of the evidence standard for bench trial sufficiency challenges. The court rejected Bingham’s arguments that cohabitation provided a defense (noting the statute actually elevates the offense for cohabitants) and that visiting public workplaces was constitutionally protected conduct. The court emphasized that stalking uses a solely objective standard focusing on what a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would experience, not the victim’s subjective reaction. The timing of the third incident—appearing at the new apartment within minutes—supported the court’s finding that this was not coincidental.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that stalking prosecutions can succeed even when some incidents occur in public places or shared residences. The objective reasonable person standard means prosecutors need not prove the victim’s subjective fear. For defense attorneys, constitutional challenges to stalking statutes must be properly briefed with meaningful legal analysis—conclusory statements are insufficient. The court also demonstrated that trial courts can infer intent from the totality of circumstances when no express findings are made, reducing the likelihood of successful appeals based on inadequate findings alone.