State v. Desiree B. Eliasen, 348 P.3d 157

Victim (a police officer’s wife) drove errands; Eliasen in a Chevy Blazer parked outside victim’s home, made a U‑turn, and followed the victim through multiple turns to a Goodwill, parked behind her, then followed her again until the police station.
Eliasen was charged with second‑degree (misdemeanor) stalking under I.C. § 18‑7906 for a "course of conduct" of repeated nonconsensual contact.
Magistrate denied motions to dismiss and for judgment of acquittal; jury convicted Eliasen and imposed sentence with probation.
District court (on appeal) and Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, finding multiple instances of nonconsensual contact (appearing at residence; following/U‑turn; surveillance at Goodwill; following thereafter).
Idaho Supreme Court granted review to decide if substantial and competent evidence supported a finding of "repeated acts" constituting a statutory "course of conduct." Court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eliasen)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove "course of conduct" ("repeated acts" of nonconsensual contact) under I.C. § 18‑7906	Evidence shows at least two statutorily listed nonconsensual acts (appearing at residence; following the victim), so a reasonable jury could find repeated acts	The conduct was a single continuous episode (parking then immediately following) — no separate, temporally distinct acts, so statute’s "repeated acts" element not met	Affirmed: viewing evidence in favor of State, at least two nonconsensual acts were proved, supporting conviction

State v. Goggin, 157 Idaho 1 (discusses sufficiency review and judgment of acquittal)
State v. Adamcik, 152 Idaho 445 (Jackson standard; review asks whether any rational trier of fact could convict)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (defines "substantial evidence")
State v. Purdum, 147 Idaho 206 (appellate review of Court of Appeals decisions)
State v. Loomis, 146 Idaho 700 (standards for reviewing district court acting in intermediate appellate capacity)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889 (statutory interpretation: plain meaning controls)
State v. Schwartz, 139 Idaho 360 (statutory construction principles)
City of Sun Valley v. Sun Valley Co., 123 Idaho 665 (avoid extrinsic aids when statute unambiguous)