Does Utah's stalking statute require proof that the defendant intended the victim to receive disparaging workplace communications? State v. Miller Explained

In State v. Miller, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important element of Utah’s stalking statute, specifically addressing whether the State must prove a defendant intended disparaging communications about the victim to reach the victim directly.

Background and Facts: Miller and K.B. were former coworkers whose relationship deteriorated after Miller discovered their employer was operated by a convicted felon. After Miller’s termination, he continued contacting K.B. despite her requests to stop. K.B. obtained a civil stalking injunction against Miller. Subsequently, Miller sent emails to the company’s attorney during settlement negotiations, making disparaging statements about K.B., suggesting he had grounds for criminal charges against her, referencing her tax liabilities, and calling her “treacherous, ungrateful, thoughtless and vicious.” These emails were forwarded to company management, and K.B. eventually saw them, causing her anxiety and fear for her job.

Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether Utah Code § 76-5-106.5 requires the State to prove that a stalking defendant knew or should have known that his disparaging communications about the victim to her employer would reach the victim. The district court had granted Miller’s motion to arrest judgment, concluding there was insufficient evidence that Miller intended to cause K.B. emotional distress since he communicated through the company’s attorney.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the stalking statute does not require proof that the defendant intended his message to reach the victim through the victim’s employer. The court emphasized that Utah’s stalking statute explicitly includes “contacting the person’s employer or coworkers” and “disseminating information about the person to the person’s employer.” The court found that emotional distress can result from damage to one’s reputation or livelihood, regardless of whether the disparaging communications are directly relayed to the victim.

Practice Implications: This decision provides important guidance for both prosecutors and defense attorneys in stalking cases. The ruling clarifies that workplace harassment through third parties can constitute stalking without proving the defendant intended direct communication with the victim. For prosecutors, the focus should be on proving the defendant knew or should have known that disparaging the victim to their employer would cause emotional distress. Defense attorneys should note that the statute’s broad definition of “course of conduct” encompasses indirect communications that damage the victim’s professional relationships or job security.