Coombs v. Dietrich
2011 UT App 136
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In October 2008, Coombs and Wife, who had recently divorced, had Wife begin a relationship with Dietrich, who later married her.
- A civil stalking injunction was issued against Dietrich based on three incidents involving Coombs, Wife, and Dietrich.
- First incident (December 2008, Dairy Queen): Dietrich allegedly made a disparaging remark about Coombs in front of Coombs's child after a court-ordered meeting, which Coombs found troubling.
- Second incident (shortly after at Wife's house): Dietrich confronted Coombs in a garage, insulted him, photographed him, and provoked him in the presence of a deputy.
- Third incident (May 2009): Dietrich allegedly forcibly took Coombs's car registration and keys, pushed Coombs against a car, and shut a car door on his arm, largely in front of their children.
- The district court found Dietrich's conduct showed a pattern of interference with Coombs's affairs, suggesting a purposeful involvement beyond protecting Wife, and concluded Coombs and a reasonable person would fear for safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dietrich's conduct constituted a course of conduct under the stalking statute | Coombs argues the three incidents collectively show a pattern causing fear for safety. | Dietrich contends some incidents are insufficient and the incidents are not properly linked as a course of conduct. | Yes; the district court's findings support a course of conduct and the injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houskeeper v. State, 197 P.3d 636 (2008) (district court findings reviewed for clear error)
- Allen v. Anger, 248 P.3d 1001 (2011) (stalking as prerequisite to civil stalking injunction)
- Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (2006) (stalking is a repetition-based offense; conduct considered cumulatively)
- Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (1997) (context and timing relevant to fear analysis in stalking)