Noel v. James, 507 P.3d 832

At a public Kanab City Council meeting, Noel and James (both involved with local water/conservancy matters) repeatedly jockeyed for position in the public-comment line; James approached "in a kind of burly manner" and later blocked Noel from returning to his seat.
The exchange was loud; both men were asked to leave by law enforcement. Noel left; James refused and was arrested for noncompliance.
Encouraged by the police chief, Noel petitioned for a civil stalking injunction. A full-day evidentiary hearing followed.
Late-disclosed videos were offered by James; the court admitted only a chamber-of-commerce video per a stipulation and excluded two city-council videos as undisclosed.
The district court found a course of conduct (two acts) but did not make an express finding that James’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in Noel’s circumstances to fear for safety or suffer statutory "emotional distress." The court nevertheless granted the stalking injunction.
On appeal, the court affirmed exclusion of the late videos but vacated the injunction and remanded for the district court to make findings on the statutory second element (reasonable-person fear or emotional distress) under the individualized objective standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Noel)	Defendant's Argument (James)	Held
Whether the district court properly granted a civil stalking injunction without expressly finding that the respondent knew or should have known his conduct would cause a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances to fear for safety or suffer emotional distress	The record supports a finding that James acted threateningly and the issue is preserved; the court could infer the necessary finding from the evidence	A reasonable person in Noel’s circumstances would not have been placed in fear or suffered statutory emotional distress; moved for directed verdict on that basis	Vacated the injunction and remanded. The court requires an explicit or clearly supported finding on the second statutory element under the individualized objective standard; the record here is not sufficiently clear to infer that finding
Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding late-disclosed city-council videos (scope of stipulation)	Stipulation was limited to the chamber-of-commerce video and objection to other videos was proper	The stipulation covered any video the witness recorded; exclusion was erroneous	Affirmed exclusion. The trial court’s finding that the stipulation was limited to the chamber-of-commerce video was not clearly erroneous; James did not show timely disclosure, good cause, or harmlessness under the rule

Ragsdale v. Fishler, 491 P.3d 835 (Utah 2021) (sets out stalking offense elements and the reasonable-person-in-victim’s-circumstances standard)
Baird v. Baird, 322 P.3d 728 (Utah 2014) (explains the individualized objective standard and relevant factors for fear/emotional-distress assessment)
Sheeran v. Thomas, 340 P.3d 797 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court may affirm without explicit finding only if the record makes the basis for the finding sufficiently clear)
Fuller v. Bohne, 392 P.3d 898 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (scope of stipulation reviewed for clear error)
State v. Bingham, 348 P.3d 730 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (discusses when an appellate court may assume district court made necessary factual findings)