565.225. Stalking, first degree, penalty. — 1. As used in this section and section 565.227, the term "disturbs" shall mean to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose and that would cause a reasonable person under the circumstances to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed.
2. A person commits the offense of stalking in the first degree if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, disturbs or follows with the intent of disturbing another person and:
(1) Makes a threat communicated with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety, the safety of his or her family or household member, or the safety of domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606 kept at such person's residence or on such person's property. The threat shall be against the life of, or a threat to cause physical injury to, or the kidnapping of the person, the person's family or household members, or the person's domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606 kept at such person's residence or on such person's property; or
(2) At least one of the acts constituting the course of conduct is in violation of an order of protection and the person has received actual notice of such order; or
(3) At least one of the actions constituting the course of conduct is in violation of a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or release on bond pending appeal; or
(4) At any time during the course of conduct, the other person is seventeen years of age or younger and the person disturbing the other person is twenty-one years of age or older; or
(5) He or she has previously been found guilty of domestic assault, violation of an order of protection, or any other crime where the other person was the victim; or
(6) At any time during the course of conduct, the other person is a participant of the address confidentiality program under sections 589.660 to 589.681, and the person disturbing the other person knowingly accesses or attempts to access the address of the other person.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.