Baird v. Baird
2014 UT 08
Utah2014Background
- Robert Baird, an adult with a seizure disorder and mental disabilities, moved out of his mother Gloria Baird’s home to live independently; Gloria then contacted him nearly daily, sometimes yelling and threatening guardianship, and briefly controlled his Social Security payments.
- Robert sought and received an ex parte temporary civil stalking injunction; Gloria requested an evidentiary hearing and the district court held a hearing on April 20, 2012.
- At the hearing, testimony from Robert, his Valley Mental Health staff, and a police employee described Robert’s anxiety and distress from Gloria’s repeated contacts; Gloria and family witnesses described her caregiving role and intentions.
- The district court found Gloria’s conduct was causing Robert emotional distress and entered a three-year civil stalking injunction against her.
- On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for the statute’s emotional distress element and whether the statutory definition of "emotional distress" incorporates the Lopez tort-based standard.
Issues
| Issue | Baird's Argument | Gloria's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emotional-distress element under Utah’s stalking statute requires a subjective or an objective test | The injunction was proper; the court found Robert subjectively suffered distress and contends that the record supports a reasonable-person finding | Trial court relied on Robert’s subjective distress; Gloria argues the statute requires an objective inquiry whether a reasonable person in Robert’s circumstances would suffer distress | Court: The statute requires a solely objective inquiry — whether a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would suffer emotional distress; remanded for reconsideration under that standard |
| Whether the 2008 statutory definition of "emotional distress" incorporates Lopez’s "outrageous and intolerable" tort standard | Baird contended the injunction would stand regardless of definition applied | Gloria argued Lopez is no longer controlling and the statute should be read without Lopez’s outrageousness requirement | Court: The 2008 statutory definition supplants Lopez; emotional distress means "significant mental or psychological suffering," not a showing of "outrageous and intolerable" conduct |
| Preservation of the stalking-issue on appeal | Baird argued Gloria failed to preserve the statutory-interpretation challenge | Gloria argued cross-examination, testimony, and the court’s ruling preserved the issue | Court: Issue was preserved because the district court necessarily ruled on statutory elements when entering the injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (adopted tort-based "outrageous and intolerable" standard for emotional distress under pre-2008 stalking law)
- Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hall v. Anderson, 562 P.2d 1250 (Utah 1977) (standard for overturning factual findings)
- State v. Gubitosi, 886 A.2d 1029 (N.H. 2005) (reasonableness under stalking statute is a question of fact)
- State v. Phelps, 967 P.2d 304 (Kan. 1998) (courts may consider defendant’s knowledge of victim’s vulnerability under an individualized objective standard)