State v. Rashid, 483 P.3d 87

Rashid, hired by a private detective agency, attached a GPS tracker to a woman’s car, photographed her license plate, surveilled and followed her on multiple occasions; the victim felt fear and emotional distress.
Police found the GPS device; the agency manager admitted hiring Rashid and directing the install but invoked the Fifth Amendment at trial.
Rashid was charged with misdemeanor stalking under Utah Code § 76-5-106.5 and moved to dismiss, arguing the criminal stalking statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied because it lacks an exemption for private investigators acting for a legitimate purpose.
Rashid sought to admit an expert to testify about private investigator training and practices to show he lacked the requisite knowledge (‘‘knows or should know’’) that his conduct would cause fear or emotional distress; the district court excluded the expert under Rules 402 and 403.
Rashid testified that he was poorly trained, believed he acted under his supervisor’s instruction, and thought the conduct was legal; a jury convicted him. He appealed on the vagueness and expert-exclusion grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah’s criminal stalking statute (§ 76-5-106.5) is unconstitutionally vague as applied	Statute is vague because it lacks an exemption for private investigators and could be confused with civil injunction law; Rashid could not know his conduct was criminal	Statute clearly defines prohibited conduct (two or more acts like surveilling/photographing) and mental state; no criminal exemption exists for PIs	Court held statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied; language provides sufficient notice and does not encourage arbitrary enforcement
Whether exclusion of Rashid’s proposed expert on PI practices was erroneous	Expert would show Rashid lacked requisite knowledge and that better training would have prevented the acts, undermining mens rea	Expert testimony about training/practices was irrelevant to whether Rashid knew or should have known his conduct would cause fear or emotional distress; any probative value was minimal and cumulative	Court held exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; testimony irrelevant to elements and, in any event, cumulative of Rashid’s own testimony

State v. Roberts, 345 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2015) (presumption of statute constitutionality; challenger bears burden)
State v. Garcia, 424 P.3d 171 (Utah 2017) (vagueness standard: statute must give ordinary people notice and not encourage arbitrary enforcement)
State v. Green, 99 P.3d 820 (Utah 2004) (statute must provide minimal guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (void-for-vagueness principles and standards)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutorial charging discretion is broad absent unconstitutional basis)
State v. Pence, 437 P.3d 475 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (statute specificity and notice analysis)
Harrison v. SPAH Family Ltd., 466 P.3d 107 (Utah 2020) (standard of review for admissibility of expert testimony)
State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991 (Utah 1995) (discussing prosecutorial discretion and charging decisions)