Utah Court of Appeals
Can simultaneous conduct constitute a course of conduct under Utah's stalking statute? Hardy v. Hardy Explained
Summary
Brian Hardy photographed his ex-wife Karen outside a therapist’s office to document what he believed was a violation of their divorce decree. Karen obtained a civil stalking injunction based on this single incident, which the district court found constituted a ‘course of conduct’ because observing and photographing were separate acts.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Hardy v. Hardy, Brian and Karen Hardy had a contentious post-divorce relationship. Brian suspected Karen was violating their divorce decree by taking their child to an unapproved therapist. To gather evidence, he went to the therapist’s office during a suspected appointment time, observed Karen in her vehicle, and took two photographs. Karen saw Brian’s car and immediately filed for a civil stalking injunction. The district court granted the injunction, finding that observing and photographing constituted separate acts that together formed a course of conduct under Utah’s stalking statute.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether simultaneously observing and photographing a person could constitute “two or more acts” required for a course of conduct under Utah Code Section 76-5-106.5. The district court reasoned that photographing served a different purpose than observing, making them separate acts. Brian challenged this interpretation, arguing the simultaneous conduct constituted only a single act.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that observing and photographing at the same time for the same purpose constituted a single act. The court emphasized that observing is generally inherent in photographing, especially when the photography must be knowing and directed toward a specific person. If these were considered separate acts, virtually any photographing would automatically establish a course of conduct, which would be inconsistent with stalking’s nature as “an offense of repetition.” The court noted that many statutory examples of stalking conduct overlap—monitoring, observing, and surveilling are essentially synonymous. The fact that conduct can be described by multiple statutory examples doesn’t create multiple acts unless they are distinct in time or purpose.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling civil stalking cases. When challenging stalking injunctions, carefully analyze whether alleged conduct truly consists of separate acts or merely describes a single act using different statutory terms. The timing and purpose of the conduct are crucial factors in this analysis.
Case Details
Case Name
Hardy v. Hardy
Citation
2020 UT App 88
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190496-CA
Date Decided
June 11, 2020
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Simultaneously observing and photographing a person for the same purpose constitutes a single act and cannot establish the required ‘course of conduct’ under Utah’s civil stalking statute.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging civil stalking injunctions, carefully analyze whether alleged conduct constitutes truly separate acts or is merely a single act that can be described by multiple statutory examples.
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.