30 A.3d 120
Del. Fm. Ct.2011Background
- Petitioner Julie Crews was charged with two counts of harassment under Delaware law for text messages to her ex-husband on May 27, 2011.
- A July 15, 2011 harassment trial before a Commissioner resulted in guilty findings on both counts, with fines and fees imposed.
- Petitioner testified the first text was in response to an incident where her son observed his father having sex with his girlfriend in close proximity to the child.
- Petitioner claimed the second text also related to concerns about the same incident and her ex-husband's conduct; both texts used offensive language.
- Petitioner timely appealed the Commissioner's Order and moved to stay execution; the Delaware Family Court reviews de novo on appeal.
- The trial court ultimately reversed and vacated the conviction, ruling the State failed to prove the requisite intent to harass, and dismissed the stay motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the texts were sent with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm | Crews sent messages in response to a distressing incident involving their son and ex-husband. | Text messages were likely to harass or alarm the ex-husband despite context. | No; insufficient intent to harass; conviction reversed. |
| Whether the two messages meet the required 'harass, annoy, or alarm' standard | Messages were contemporaneous with a custody-related distressing incident, not persistent harassment. | Any offensive messages could constitute harassment under the statute's broad wording. | No; two messages do not constitute persistent behavior to meet the standard. |
| Whether the court should defer to the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute or reassess de novo | Court should reassess the facts de novo in light of the evidence and lack of intent. | De novo review allows reexamination of the record but should respect Commissioner's findings absent new evidence. | De novo review; court may reverse if record does not support guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. State, 761 A.2d 830 (Del. 2000) (harassment requires showing intent to harass, annoy, or alarm)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1942) (fighting words doctrine)