{"id":721,"date":"2012-08-03T18:49:05","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T18:49:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=721"},"modified":"2018-07-19T18:18:58","modified_gmt":"2018-07-19T18:18:58","slug":"stalking","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=721","title":{"rendered":"Stalking"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Stalking<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR22-502.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-502.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Stalking<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1062 (03\/23\/07) (for crimes charged prior to applicability of 2015 amendments)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-503.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-503.htm\">Stalking<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1062 (07\/19\/18) (based on 2015 amendments)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Aggravated Stalking<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CR22-507.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-507.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Violated Court Order<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(1) (04\/07\/08)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-511.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-511.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Previously Convicted of Stalking<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(2) (04\/22\/03)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-516.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-516.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Previously Convicted of Act of Violence<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(3)(04\/22\/03)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-522.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-522.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Person Under Age of 16 Years<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(4) (03\/23\/07)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-527.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-527.htm\" target=\"_blank\">With Deadly Weapon<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(5) (04\/07\/08)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><em>Reporter&#8217;s Notes<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The stalking statutes were originally enacted in 1993, and were subsequently amended in 1999, 2005, 2013, and most recently in 2015. All of the current instructions incorporate the 2015 amendment, which took effect on July 1, 2016. If you have reason to need pre-2016 instructions, please contact the reporter by email (see link at bottom right). See <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. van Aelstyn<\/span>, 2007 VT 6, 181 Vt. 274 (upholding conviction based on prior statute).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The original stalking statute, \u00a7 1062, prohibiting intentional stalking, was ambiguous regarding the specific intent that needed to be proven. Applying the rule of lenity, the committee interpreted the statute as requiring proof that the defendant intended to cause the specific harm (i.e. the defendant intended to cause the victim to fear for his or her physical safety, or the defendant intended to cause the victim substantial emotional distress). However, the 2005 amendments to the definitions section (\u00a7 1061) changed the meaning of \u201cstalk\u201d to a more objective standard. Whereas the earlier definition required a course of conduct which \u201ccauses the person to fear for his or her physical safety or causes the person substantial emotional distress,\u201d the 2005 definition required a course of conduct which \u201cwould cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.\u201d 2005, No. 83, \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Based on the 2005 amendments to the statute, the committee amended the mental element for stalking to reflect the view that the State must show that the defendant\u2019s intentional conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety, or that it would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The committee amended CR22-502 again in 2009 in response to <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Hinchliffe<\/span>, 2009 VT 111, 186 Vt. 487, and State v. Ellis, 2009 VT 74, 186 Vt. 232, which suggested that stalking is not a specific intent crime. The 2009 amendment to the instruction also clarified that the third essential element involves an objective standard that is \u201cmeasured by examining whether a reasonable person in the victim\u2019s circumstances would be afraid.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Hinchliffe<\/span>, 2009 VT 111, \u00b6 25.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Legislature again revised the stalking statutes in 2015. See 2015, Adj. Sess., No. 162, \u00a7 5, eff. July 1, 2016; see also 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1061. This most recent amendment redefines \u201ccourse of conduct,\u201d and eliminates the prior requirement that the conduct must \u201cserve[] no legitimate purpose.\u201d However, the provision of the former statute that \u201cConstitutionally protected conduct is not included within the meaning of \u201ccourse of conduct\u201d was retained. The amendment also eliminates statutory definitions for \u201cfollowing,\u201d \u201charassing,\u201d and \u201clying in wait,\u201d adds a definition for \u201cemotional distress,\u201d and further clarifies that \u201c[r]easonable person\u201d means \u201ca reasonable person in the victim\u2019s circumstances.\u201d Finally, the amendment revises the mental element by providing a new alternative by which to prove the mental element that the defendant knows or should know that his or her conduct \u201cwould cause a reasonable person to fear for . . . <em>the safety of another . . . .<\/em>\u201d 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1061(4) (emphasis added). The current instructions reflect the 2015 legislative amendment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The State need not prove that all the essential elements of stalking occurred at the same time. A defendant may still be convicted of stalking even if his or her actions do not cause fear or serious emotional distress until some later point. See <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Hoch<\/span>, 2013 VT 83, \u00b6\u00b6 11\u201314, 194 Vt. 575 (upholding conviction based on prior statute).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00a0<em>Aggravated Stalking &#8212; Violation of Court Order.\u00a0<\/em>The statute at 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(1) does not specifically require notice of the court order, and the model instruction does not include an element that the defendant received a copy of the order.\u00a0 (Also see CR22-371, second degree aggravated domestic assault, under 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1044(a)(1)).\u00a0 In contrast, the statute for violation of an abuse prevention order (13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1030), specifically requires notice.\u00a0 Notwithstanding this difference, the committee notes that, in the rare case when the defendant has not received notice of the order, it would be unfair to consider violation of the order as an aggravating factor.\u00a0 In such cases, the element of notice must be proven.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Stalking CR22-502.\u00a0 Stalking, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1062 (03\/23\/07) (for crimes charged prior to applicability of 2015 amendments) CR22-503.\u00a0 Stalking, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1062 (07\/19\/18) (based on 2015 amendments) Aggravated Stalking CR22-507.\u00a0 Violated Court Order, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1063(a)(1) (04\/07\/08) CR22-511.\u00a0 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=721\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":434,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-721","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=721"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1428,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/721\/revisions\/1428"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}