State v. Miller
440 P.3d 868
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Miller worked at the company and helped K.B. get hired as a bookkeeper; their friendship later deteriorated.
- After being fired, Miller repeatedly contacted K.B. despite her requests to stop; she obtained a civil stalking injunction against him.
- Miller and the company engaged in litigation and settlement negotiations; Miller emailed the company’s attorney making settlement proposals and disparaging K.B. and requesting benefits for her and her daughter.
- The company’s attorney forwarded Miller’s emails to company officials; K.B. learned of the emails indirectly at work and testified they caused her anxiety and fear about her job.
- A jury convicted Miller of stalking based on the emails (Count 3); Miller moved to arrest judgment, arguing the State failed to prove he knew or should have known the emails would reach K.B. and cause emotional distress.
- The district court granted the motion; the State appealed and the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain stalking conviction under Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2) | State: Miller’s emails to the company’s attorney, disparaging K.B. and involving her in settlement talks, were a course of conduct directed at K.B. that he knew or should have known would cause emotional distress | Miller: The State had to prove he knew or should have known the emails would be relayed to K.B.; lacking that, no reasonable jury could find the required mental state | Reversed district court: sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding that Miller’s indirect communications to K.B.’s employer could cause emotional distress and that Miller knew or should have known this |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Black, 344 P.3d 644 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing arrest of judgment/insufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (standard for when a court may arrest a jury verdict for insufficient evidence)
- Baird v. Baird, 322 P.3d 728 (Utah 2014) (context on statutory construction and reliance on Model Stalking Code)
- State v. Askham, 86 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (course of conduct designed to destroy victim’s personal/professional life may cause substantial emotional distress)