565.225. Stalking, first degree, penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of stalking in the first degree if he or she knowingly, through a course of conduct that is directed at another person or through technological abuse conduct, engages in conduct that would cause a reasonable person under similar circumstances to:
(1) Fear death or bodily injury to the person;
(2) Fear that an offense will be committed against a member of the person's family or household members, or an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship;
(3) Fear that an offense will be committed against the person's property; or
(4) Feel harassed, terrified, or intimidated.
2. Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
3. This section shall not apply to activities of federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers conducting investigations of any violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law.
4. The offense of stalking in the first degree is a class E felony, unless the defendant has previously been found guilty of a violation of this section or section 565.227, or any offense committed in another jurisdiction which, if committed in this state, would be chargeable or indictable as a violation of any offense listed in this section or section 565.227, or unless the victim is intentionally targeted as a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 556.061, or the victim is targeted because he or she is a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity to a law enforcement officer, in which case stalking in the first degree is a class D felony.
Notes of Decisions
State of Missouri v. William Darrell Joyner, 458 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 18× “Martin, Judge William Darrell Joyner (“Joyner”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of one count of aggravated stalking in violation of section 565.225. 1 Joyner asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his counsel’s objection and request for a…”
State v. Mabry, 285 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “Sufficiency of Evidence for Stalking Charge In his third point, Defendant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and sentencing him for stalking in violation of Mo.Rev. Stat. § 565.225 (Cum.Supp.2004)…”
State v. Starkey, 380 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Mark Starkey (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him on four counts of aggravated stalking, Section 565.225, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008. 1 We affirm.”
State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 3× “…in common-law torts, also is utilized in Missouri’s stalking statute along with both "frighten” and "intimidate.” See section 565.225, RSMo Supp.2008.”
State of Missouri v. Robert Metzinger, 456 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “2012) (Section 565.225, RSMo 2008, which criminalizes stalking, defines "credible threat” as "threat communicated with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her family, or household…”
State v. Dawson, 985 S.W.2d 941 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Following a bench trial, William Dawson was convicted of stalking, pursuant to § 565.225, RSMo 1994, 1 and third degree assault, pursuant to § 565.”
Melillo v. State, 380 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Having offered no testimony to support these (or any other) IAC findings, Movant’s argument is fairly summarized in this excerpt from his brief: A search for any cases testing the constitutionality of RSMo § 565.225 for any constitutional defect produced no results.”
State v. Wayman, 926 S.W.2d 900 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “He was acquitted of stalking, section 565.225, RSMo 1994. He alleges the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce, over objection, the testimony of Julie Jones 1 that she received a phone call from her son’s high school informing her that a school employee had…”
State v. Bernhardt, 338 S.W.3d 830 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Constitutionality Defendant contends that section 565.225 is unconstitutionally vague.”
Wallace v. Van Pelt, 969 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Missouri adopted its criminal anti-stalking statute, § 565.225, in 1993. However, Missouri went further and also amended the Adult Abuse Act to authorize protective orders in cases of stalking.”
State v. Cartwright, 17 S.W.3d 149 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “James Cartwright (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered on his conviction of aggravated stalking in violation of Section 565.225 RSMo. (1994) 1 . On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court erred in (1) overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal and in sentencing…”
State v. Sigmon, 517 S.W.3d 653 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Determining that Section 565.225, “clearly requires that a person commit more than one act of harassment towards a victim to be found guilty of criminal stalking[,]” our Court noted that the defendant was charged with stalking by repeatedly yelling at the victim, but that the…”
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.