(1)(A) “Course of conduct” means two or more acts over a period of time, however short, in
which a person follows, monitors, surveils, threatens, or makes threats about another
person, or interferes with another person’s property. This definition shall apply
to acts conducted by the person directly or indirectly, and by any action, method,
device, or means. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning
of “course of conduct.”
(B) As used in subdivision (A) of this subdivision (1), threaten shall not be construed
to require an express or overt threat.
(2) “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but
does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.
(3) “Reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances.
(4) “Stalk” means to engage purposefully in a course of conduct directed at a specific
person that the person engaging in the conduct knows or should know would cause a
reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of another or would
cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress. (Added 1993, No. 95, § 1; amended 1999, No. 124 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; 2005, No. 83, § 4; 2013, No. 150 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 2015, No. 162 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.)
State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 6דIn this case, the State’s theory was that defendant’s course of conduct was “harassing,” which is defined in the statute as: actions directed at a specific person, or a member of the person’s family, which would cause a reasonable person to fear unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful…”
State of Vermont v. Christian J. Noll, 199 A.3d 1054 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 4ד4 In 2016, the Legislature amended several definitions in the stalking statute effective July 1, 2016. 2015, No. 162 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.”
State v. Waters, 2013 VT 109 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 3ד13 V.S.A. § 1061(4). The statute prohibiting disturbing the peace by electronic communication does not define harassment, but states that “[a]n intent to terrify, threaten, harass or annoy may be inferred by the trier of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent…”
State v. Prior, 917 A.2d 466 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 3דThe statute, at the time of the offenses, defined “following” as “maintaining over a period of time a visual or physical proximity to another person in such manner as would cause a reasonable person to have a fear of unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful restraint, bodily injury, or…”
State v. Ellis, 2009 VT 74 (Vt. 2009). “The term “stalk” is defined in 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1) and contains three elements, two of which are defined in the alternative.”
State v. Malshuk, 2004 VT 54 (Vt. 2004). “” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B). Similarly, it would be possible to follow someone without entering the buffer zone and to enter the buffer zone without following.”
State v. van Aelstyn, 2007 VT 6 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 2ד83, § 4 (amending definition of “stalk” in 13 V.S.A. § 1061); 1 V.S.A. § 212 (providing that laws take effect on July 1 following enactment unless otherwise provided).”
In re Hoch, 2013 VT 83 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 3ד” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B) (1993). The current version, as amended in 2005, defines stalking as a course of conduct described above that “would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.”
State v. Waters, 195 Vt. 233 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 3ד13 V.S.A. § 1061(4). The statute prohibiting disturbing the peace by electronic communication does not define harassment, but states that “[a]n intent to terrify, threaten, harass or annoy may be inferred by the trier of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent…”
State v. van Aelstyn, 181 Vt. 274 (Vt. 2007). “In July 2005, 13 V.S.A. § 1061 was amended: the definition of "stalk," which had prohibited conduct that "causes the person to fear for his or her physical safety," a subjective test, was redefined to include only conduct that "would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or…”
State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111 (Vt. 2009). “In this case, the State’s theory was that defendant’s course of conduct was “harassing,” which is defined in the statute as: actions directed at a specific person, or a member of the person’s family, which would cause a reasonable person to fear unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful…”
State of Vermont v. Christian J. Noll, 199 A.3d 1054 (Vt. 2018). “4 In 2016, the Legislature amended several definitions in the stalking statute effective July 1, 2016. 2015, No. 162 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.”
State v. Ellis, 2009 VT 74 (Vt. 2009). “The term “stalk” is defined in 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1) and contains three elements, two of which are defined in the alternative.”
State v. Prior, 917 A.2d 466 (Vt. 2007). “The statute, at the time of the offenses, defined “following” as “maintaining over a period of time a visual or physical proximity to another person in such manner as would cause a reasonable person to have a fear of unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful restraint, bodily injury, or…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1061(1)(B) — 3 cases
State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111 (Vt. 2009). “In this case, the State’s theory was that defendant’s course of conduct was “harassing,” which is defined in the statute as: actions directed at a specific person, or a member of the person’s family, which would cause a reasonable person to fear unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful…”
State v. Malshuk, 2004 VT 54 (Vt. 2004). “” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B). Similarly, it would be possible to follow someone without entering the buffer zone and to enter the buffer zone without following.”
In re Hoch, 2013 VT 83 (Vt. 2013). “” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B) (1993). The current version, as amended in 2005, defines stalking as a course of conduct described above that “would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.”
State of Vermont v. Christian J. Noll, 199 A.3d 1054 (Vt. 2018). “4 In 2016, the Legislature amended several definitions in the stalking statute effective July 1, 2016. 2015, No. 162 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.”
State v. Prior, 917 A.2d 466 (Vt. 2007). “The statute, at the time of the offenses, defined “following” as “maintaining over a period of time a visual or physical proximity to another person in such manner as would cause a reasonable person to have a fear of unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful restraint, bodily injury, or…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1061(4) — 5 cases
State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111 (Vt. 2009). “In this case, the State’s theory was that defendant’s course of conduct was “harassing,” which is defined in the statute as: actions directed at a specific person, or a member of the person’s family, which would cause a reasonable person to fear unlawful sexual conduct, unlawful…”
State v. Waters, 2013 VT 109 (Vt. 2013). “13 V.S.A. § 1061(4). The statute prohibiting disturbing the peace by electronic communication does not define harassment, but states that “[a]n intent to terrify, threaten, harass or annoy may be inferred by the trier of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent…”
State v. Waters, 195 Vt. 233 (Vt. 2013). “13 V.S.A. § 1061(4). The statute prohibiting disturbing the peace by electronic communication does not define harassment, but states that “[a]n intent to terrify, threaten, harass or annoy may be inferred by the trier of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent…”
In re Hoch, 2013 VT 83 (Vt. 2013). “” 13 V.S.A. § 1061(1)(B) (1993). The current version, as amended in 2005, defines stalking as a course of conduct described above that “would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her physical safety or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.”
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.