M.K. v. Doyle, 330 P.3d 1278

Doyle appeals the grant of M.K.'s civil stalking injunction.
M.K. must prove, by preponderance, that Doyle knowingly or intentionally engaged in a course of conduct directed at her that a reasonable person would fear for safety or suffer emotional distress.
Doyle argues an ongoing consensual relationship negates the stalking statute’s applicability as a matter of law.
The court reviews the interpretation of the stalking statute de novo as a question of law.
The trial judge relied on his experience with domestic violence and referenced an Axis I disorder, not a clinical diagnosis, in evaluating distress.
The court ultimately affirms the injunction and awards attorney fees to M.K. on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does an ongoing relationship preclude relief on a stalking injunction?	Doyle argues relationship negates statutory elements.	Doyle maintains relationship bars the course of conduct finding.	Ongoing relationship does not bar the injunction.
Was the trial court's reference to an Axis I disorder improper?	State relied on disorder to discount distress evidence.	Court used experience to frame credibility and distress.	Court properly considered context; not improper judicial notice.
Did the evidence support a finding of a course of conduct causing distress?	MK suffered distress from repeated sexual coercion.	Her continued contact post-abuse undermines distress claim.	Evidence supports finding of stalking conduct and distress.
Was the judge’s credibility assessment properly grounded in the record?	Credibility should be assessed without considering psychological labels.	Judge evaluated demeanor and context of domestic violence.	Credibility assessment affirmed given witness demeanor and context.

Bott v. Osburn, 257 P.3d 1022 (Utah Court of Appeals 2011) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness; no deference to district court)
Towner v. Ridgway, 182 P.3d 347 (Utah 2008) (victim need not have adversarial relationship between incidents; coercive conduct can fit course of conduct)
Ellison v. Stam, 136 P.3d 1242 (Utah App. 2006) (courts may consider context and experience in evaluating fear/distress)
State v. John, 586 P.2d 410 (Utah 1978) (credibility is for the finder of fact; courts may draw reasonable inferences)
Henshaw v. Henshaw, 271 P.3d 837 (Utah App. 2012) (findings depend on viewing witnesses firsthand and demeanor)
Graham v. State, 263 P.3d 569 (Utah App. 2011) (weighing conflicting evidence and witness credibility within appellate review)
Peterson v. Peterson, 863 A.2d 1059 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (courts consider totality of circumstances and common sense in harassment cases)
Commonwealth v. Russell, 705 N.E.2d 1144 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (courts may infer purpose to harass from evidence and experience)