State v. G. Smith
2021 MT 171N
Mont.2021Background
- Busby obtained an April 2018 order of protection prohibiting Smith from contacting her or coming within 300 feet of her or her vehicle.
- On August 31, 2018 Busby saw a silver Dodge Ram in the Town Pump parking lot that she believed was Smith; she felt "scared to death," sped away, and took evasive routes home.
- Surveillance video from Town Pump and Wal‑Mart showed a truck entering after Busby, parking near her vehicle, and following her out of both parking lots; officers thought the truck resembled Smith's and appeared positioned to monitor Busby.
- Law enforcement contacted Smith on September 10; he acknowledged awareness of the order of protection and admitted being at Wal‑Mart and not leaving Town Pump after learning Busby was there.
- Busby testified she suffered substantial emotional distress and changed behavior (bought pepper spray, took concealed carry class, installed security system, varied routes).
- Procedural posture: Smith was tried by jury, convicted of felony stalking in violation of § 45‑5‑220, MCA; his post‑rest motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence was denied; he appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support felony stalking conviction under § 45‑5‑220 | Surveillance video, Busby's testimony about fear and changed behavior, and Smith's admission of awareness of the order and presence near Busby's vehicle established repeated following and substantial emotional distress | Evidence was insufficient—events did not meet the repeated‑action or substantial‑distress elements and credibility issues exist | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt; de novo review of insufficiency claims upheld the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bekemans, 368 Mont. 235, 293 P.3d 843 (de novo review of insufficiency claims)
- State v. Fleming, 397 Mont. 345, 449 P.3d 1234 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Weigand, 328 Mont. 198, 119 P.3d 74 (jury's province to weigh credibility)
- State v. Rennaker, 335 Mont. 274, 150 P.3d 960 (appellate deference to jury fact‑findings)
- State v. Yuhas, 358 Mont. 27, 243 P.3d 409 (definitions: repeated action, intimidation, and reasonable‑person substantial‑emotional‑distress standard)