Del. C. » Title 11 — Delaware Criminal Code · CHAPTER 5. Specific Offenses · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 1312 (2026)

Stalking; class E felony, class D felony, class C felony

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and that conduct would cause a reasonable person to:

(1) Fear physical injury to that person or that of another person; or

(2) Suffer other significant mental anguish or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is a class E felony.

(c) Stalking is a class D felony if a person is guilty of stalking and 1 or more of the following exists:

(1) The person is age 21 or older and the victim is under the age of 14; or

(2) The person violated any order prohibiting contact with the victim; or

(3) The victim is age 62 years of age or older; or

(4) The course of conduct includes a threat of death or threat of serious physical injury to the victim, or to another person; or

(5) The person causes physical injury to the victim.

(d) Stalking is a class C felony if the person is guilty of stalking and 1 or more of the following exists:

(1) The person possesses a deadly weapon during any act; or

(2) The person causes serious physical injury to the victim.

(e) Definitions. — The following terms shall have the following meaning as used in this section:

(1) “Course of conduct” means:

a. Three or more separate incidents, including acts in which the person by any action, method, device, or means either directly, indirectly, or through third parties:

1. Follows, monitors, observes, or surveys a person.

2. Threatens or communicates to or about another and consciously disregards a substantial risk that the actor’s threats or communications are a violation of subsection (a) of this section.

3. Interferes with, jeopardizes, damages, or disrupts another’s daily activities, property, employment, business, career, education, or medical care.

b A conviction is not required for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct. A conviction for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct does not preclude prosecution under this section. Prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution under any other section of the Code.

(2) “A reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances.

(f) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of § 4205 of this title, any person who commits the crime of stalking by engaging in a course of conduct which includes any act or acts which have previously been prohibited by a then-existing court order or sentence shall receive a minimum sentence of 6 months incarceration at Level V. The first 6 months of said period of incarceration shall not be subject to suspension.

(g) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of § 4205 of this title, any person who is convicted of stalking within 5 years of a prior conviction of stalking shall receive a minimum sentence of 1 year incarceration at Level V. The first year of said period of incarceration shall not be subject to suspension.

(h) In any prosecution under this law, it shall not be a defense that the perpetrator was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or that the perpetrator did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.

(i) In any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative defense that the person charged was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity. If a person asserts a defense under this subsection, and the defense is found valid as a matter of law, then all evidence of the activity must be excluded.

(j) This section shall not apply to conduct which occurs in furtherance of legitimate activities of law-enforcement, private investigators, security officers or private detectives as those activities are defined in Chapter 13 of Title 24.

68 Del. Laws, c. 250, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1;  70 Del. Laws, c. 316, §  1;  74 Del. Laws, c. 116, §§  1, 2;  76 Del. Laws, c. 343, §  4;  84 Del. Laws, c. 42, § 1;  85 Del. Laws, c. 259, § 1; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Baumann v. State, 891 A.2d 146 (Del. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baumann v. State, 891 A.2d 146 (Del. 2005). “12 *150 The limiting instruction by the trial judge ensured that the evidence would not be used for the improper purpose of showing bad character. We find no abuse of discretion by the Superior Court in its evidentiary ruling on the facts of this case.”
State v. Reeves (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 8× “In doing so, he raises an issue of first impression in Delaware – whether 11 Del.C. § 1312 (the “Statute” or “Section 1312”) is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad.”
State v. Reeves (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 8× “In doing so, he raises an issue of first impression in Delaware – whether 11 Del.C. § 1312 (the “Statute” or “Section 1312”) is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad.”
Jewell v. State (Del. 2025). · cites it 6× “39 subjective-intent requirement into 11 Del. C. § 1312. A construction of the statute that does not impute a subjective intent element, Jewell claims, would criminalize protected speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Woody v. State (Del. 2019). · cites it 3× “Under 11 Del. C. § 1312, “[a] person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person.”
Iverson v. State (Del. 2024). · cites it 2× “11 11 Del. C. § 1312. 12 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1).”
State v. Cresto (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “It is reasonable 25 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1). 26 State v. Anderson, 2018 WL 6177176 , at *2 (Del.”
Smith v. Delaware State Police (Del. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “In addition, Plaintiff has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of Delaware’s stalking statute, 11 Del. Code § 1312, when the underlying warrants for Plaintiff’s arrest were not for charges of stalking.”
Tran v. State (Del. 2018). “A38 2 11 Del. C. § 1312. 2003 for the express purpose of eliminating the requirement that the victim be aware that he or she is being stalked.”
State v. Nastatos (Del. Super. Ct. 2019). “211 Del. C.§ 1312. 311 Del. C. § 2109. 411 Del.”
State v. Jewell (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “24 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1). 5 punishing him for both.”
Martin v. State (Del. 2023). “”6 The trial court told Martin that the guidelines are simply recommendations to the trial court and that “what that means in total is the maximum punishment you’re facing is five years with a minimum of six months, and a fine of up to a thousand dollars, plus anything at the 3…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(a) — 4 cases
State v. Reeves (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). “In doing so, he raises an issue of first impression in Delaware – whether 11 Del.C. § 1312 (the “Statute” or “Section 1312”) is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad.”
State v. Reeves (Del. Super. Ct. 2024). “In doing so, he raises an issue of first impression in Delaware – whether 11 Del.C. § 1312 (the “Statute” or “Section 1312”) is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad.”
Jewell v. State (Del. 2025). “39 subjective-intent requirement into 11 Del. C. § 1312. A construction of the statute that does not impute a subjective intent element, Jewell claims, would criminalize protected speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Rodgers (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(a)(1) — 1 case
Jewell v. State (Del. 2025). “39 subjective-intent requirement into 11 Del. C. § 1312. A construction of the statute that does not impute a subjective intent element, Jewell claims, would criminalize protected speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(b) — 1 case
Woody v. State (Del. 2019). “Under 11 Del. C. § 1312, “[a] person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person.”
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(c) — 4 cases
Martin v. State (Del. 2023). “”6 The trial court told Martin that the guidelines are simply recommendations to the trial court and that “what that means in total is the maximum punishment you’re facing is five years with a minimum of six months, and a fine of up to a thousand dollars, plus anything at the 3…”
State v. El-Abbadi (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
State v. El-Abbadi (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
State v. El-Abbadi (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(c)(2) — 1 case
Cooling v. State (Del. 2023).
— 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Cresto (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). “It is reasonable 25 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1). 26 State v. Anderson, 2018 WL 6177176 , at *2 (Del.”
Woody v. State (Del. 2019). “Under 11 Del. C. § 1312, “[a] person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person.”
State v. Jewell (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “24 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1). 5 punishing him for both.”
Iverson v. State (Del. 2024). “11 11 Del. C. § 1312. 12 11 Del. C. § 1312(e)(1).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.