Utah Court of Appeals
Can obscene gestures constitute stalking under Utah law? Higley v. Buhler Explained
Summary
Buhler appealed a permanent civil stalking injunction after he repeatedly drove past Higley’s residence and made obscene gestures following an earlier physical altercation that resulted in Higley’s hospitalization. The district court found that Buhler’s post-fight conduct, viewed in context of the prior assault, constituted stalking under Utah’s civil stalking statute.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Higley v. Buhler, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether making obscene gestures could constitute stalking when viewed in the proper legal context. After a physical altercation on July 7, 2018, that resulted in Higley’s hospitalization and Buhler’s arrest for assault, Buhler repeatedly drove past Higley’s residence and made obscene gestures toward Higley and his family members. Higley sought and obtained a temporary civil stalking injunction, which Buhler challenged at a hearing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Buhler’s conduct satisfied Utah’s stalking statute under Utah Code section 76-5-106.5. The statute requires a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances to fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress. Buhler argued that making obscene gestures constituted protected speech and that the evidence was insufficient to establish stalking.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that Utah’s stalking statute uses an individualized objective standard requiring courts to consider “the entire context surrounding respondent’s conduct.” The court properly considered whether Buhler’s post-assault conduct would cause a reasonable person in Higley’s specific circumstances to fear for safety. The statute’s definition of “reasonable person” as “a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances” allows courts to evaluate conduct contextually rather than in isolation.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the importance of contextual analysis in stalking cases. Courts will not view alleged stalking incidents in isolation but will consider prior relationships and incidents between parties. Practitioners should note that constitutional arguments must be specifically preserved at the trial court level. The decision also clarifies that conduct qualifying as “communicates to or about a person” under the statute can include non-verbal gestures when evaluated within the appropriate factual context.
Case Details
Case Name
Higley v. Buhler
Citation
2019 UT App 96
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180925-CA
Date Decided
June 6, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court properly considers conduct in the totalized context of prior incidents when determining whether behavior constitutes stalking under Utah Code section 76-5-106.5.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation and application of statutes
Practice Tip
When challenging civil stalking injunctions, address constitutional arguments at the trial court level to preserve them for appeal, as failure to raise specific constitutional claims will result in waiver.
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.