For the purpose of this chapter:
(1) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a
period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity
is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
(2) “Harasses” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person
with the intent to seriously alarm, annoy, or bother the person, and which serves
no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable
person to suffer substantial emotional distress, or be in fear of bodily injury.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 6× “” Section 11-59-1(1) defines course of conduct as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Section 11-59-1, as amended by P.L. 1995, ch.”
State v. Stierhoff, 879 A.2d 425 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 6× “At the conclusion of the evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the criminal charges on the grounds that the state had failed to sustain its burden of proof under § 11-59-1 and § 11-59-2. The trial justice granted the motion in part, finding that the state had failed to present…”
Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 2012).
“1 (2011); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-59-1 (2002); S.C.Code Ann.”
State v. Bryan, 910 P.2d 212 (Kan. 1996).
“); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-59-1 to -3 (1994); S.”
State v. Fonseca, 670 A.2d 1237 (R.I. 1996).
“” In the statute’s definition section, § 11-59-1, the following words and phrases were defined.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-59-1(1): 1 case
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
“” Section 11-59-1(1) defines course of conduct as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-59-1(2): 3 cases
State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491 (R.I. 2004).
“” Section 11-59-1(1) defines course of conduct as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose.”
State v. Stierhoff, 879 A.2d 425 (R.I. 2005).
“At the conclusion of the evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the criminal charges on the grounds that the state had failed to sustain its burden of proof under § 11-59-1 and § 11-59-2. The trial justice granted the motion in part, finding that the state had failed to present…”
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.