James Hamm v. State, 05-13-01687-CR

Hamm was convicted of stalking and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by a Dallas (Fifth District) Court of Appeals.
Complainant, then 16, described repeated bystander-like driving, honking, waving, and watching by a man matching Hamm’s car.
Incidents included waiting at a store, opening a door, and asking the complainant to get into the car, causing fear of kidnapping.
License plate led officers to Hamm; Hamm acknowledged awareness of the concern but claimed no wrongdoing.
Police warned Hamm to cease contact after interviews, but the behavior recurred months later and again prompted police involvement.
The record included sworn testimonies from officers about the warnings, the fear testified to by the complainant, and Hamm’s responses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury charge omitted an element	Hamm	State	No reversible error
Whether the charge failed to require intent that conduct be threatening	Hamm	State	No reversible error
Whether evidence supported the knowledge/awareness element	Hamm	State	Sufficient evidence

Ploeger v. State, 189 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (elements of stalking must be addressed conjunctively)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (application paragraph must address culpable mental state)
Holley v. State, 766 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (application paragraph must apply abstract law to facts)
Campbell v. State, 910 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (avoid referring to law of parties in abstract without applying to facts)
Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (logically consistent combination of application and abstract paragraphs suffices)
Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (abstract law must be applied to facts in the charge)
Fennell v. State, 424 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (court must apply stated law to facts)