Does Utah's stalking statute require proof that defendants know their conduct will reach victims? Miller v. State Explained

In Miller v. State, the Utah Supreme Court clarified a crucial element of Utah’s stalking statute, addressing whether prosecutors must prove defendants knew their conduct would actually reach intended victims.

Background and Facts

Gregory Miller was convicted of stalking Kendra, a former coworker, based primarily on emails he sent to an attorney who represented both Kendra and their former employer. Miller had previously been subject to a stalking injunction prohibiting direct contact with Kendra. After the injunction, Miller engaged in email correspondence with the company’s attorney regarding settlement negotiations, during which he made derogatory comments about Kendra and proposed that the company pay her debts and establish a college fund for her daughter.

The district court arrested the jury’s guilty verdict, concluding no reasonable jury could have convicted Miller since his communications were directed to the attorney rather than Kendra directly. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, and Miller sought certiorari review.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2), which requires that defendants “know[] or should know” their course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress. Miller argued this element requires proof that he knew his communications would actually reach Kendra.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stalking statute does not require proof that defendants knew their conduct would reach the intended victim. Instead, the statute requires only that defendants knew or should have known their conduct would cause emotional distress to a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. The Court explained this interpretation allows for situations where victims experience distress from a defendant’s course of conduct even without direct awareness of the defendant’s specific actions.

Applying this standard, the Court found sufficient evidence supported Miller’s conviction. The evidence showed Miller’s emails continued a pattern of behavior that had previously caused Kendra to seek a protective order, including offers to pay her debts and attempts to control her employment situation.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s stalking statute covers indirect communications that cause emotional distress, even when defendants don’t intend for victims to learn of their conduct. Defense attorneys should focus on challenging whether defendants actually knew or should have known their conduct would cause distress to reasonable persons in victims’ specific circumstances, rather than arguing the conduct never directly reached victims. The decision also emphasizes the importance of presenting evidence about the broader context and history between parties when assessing whether conduct constitutes stalking under Utah law.