Can the State prove stalking with different acts than those charged? State v. Schroeder Explained

In State v. Schroeder, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the State can prove a stalking conviction using different acts than those specified in the charging documents. The court’s decision provides important guidance on charging requirements and variance doctrine in criminal cases.

Background and Facts

Following the end of his romantic relationship with Samantha, Michael Schroeder was served with a protective order requiring him to stay at least 1,000 feet from her and refrain from contact. The State subsequently charged Schroeder with two protective order violations (September 23, 2018 and January 7, 2019) and one count of criminal stalking. The stalking charge was based on three specific incidents outlined in the charging documents: an alleged January 6, 2019 smoke shop incident, the January 7 protective order violation, and an alleged drive-by incident later on January 7.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether sufficient evidence supported Schroeder’s convictions. For the stalking charge specifically, the question was whether the State proved the required course of conduct consisting of “two or more acts” as defined by Utah Code section 76-5-106.5. The State presented evidence of only the January 7 incident at trial, failing to prove the other two acts specified in the charging documents.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the clear error standard when reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims in bench trials. The court affirmed both protective order violation convictions, finding sufficient evidence that Schroeder intentionally violated the order by driving past Samantha’s home and slowing down to stare at her. However, the court reversed the stalking conviction because the State failed to present evidence of the acts specifically alleged in the charging documents. Although the trial court attempted to combine the September 23 and January 7 incidents to establish the required course of conduct, this approach violated charging requirements since the September 23 incident was never alleged as part of the stalking charge.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that the State must prove substantially as charged the offense upon which it relies for conviction. Prosecutors cannot substitute different acts at trial to establish essential elements of charged offenses. The ruling also highlights the importance of careful charging decisions and the potential application of variance doctrine when evidence deviates from charging documents in ways that could prejudice defendants’ ability to prepare their defense.