State v. Schroeder, 531 P.3d 757

Samantha obtained a permanent protective order (Aug 13, 2018) barring Schroeder from contacting her and coming within 1,000 feet of her home; Schroeder was present when order issued.
On Sept 23, 2018, Schroeder drove down Samantha’s street, came within ~20–25 feet of her, slowed/stopped, and made eye contact; Samantha and a friend identified his truck and driver; police interviewed him afterward.
On Jan 7, 2019, Samantha saw a diesel truck on an adjacent (cross) street ~three houses away; she made eye contact and shook her head; she reported the incident but Schroeder denied involvement.
The State charged Schroeder with two protective-order violations (Sept 23 and Jan 7) and a stalking charge that, in the charging documents, relied on three incidents (Jan 6, Jan 7, and a later Jan 7 drive‑by); the charging papers did not mention Sept 23.
At a consolidated bench trial the court found Schroeder guilty of both protective-order violations and stalking; on appeal the court affirmed both PO convictions but reversed the stalking conviction because the State failed to prove the charged course of conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Sept 23 PO violation	Schroeder intentionally drove past Samantha, knew of the order, and violated the 1,000‑foot restriction	State lacked evidence of Schroeder’s mental state/knowledge at the time	Affirmed — Schroeder conceded he intentionally drove past after recognizing where he was and had been served with the order, supporting conviction
Sufficiency of evidence for Jan 7 PO violation	Schroeder slowed and stared from an adjacent street <1,000 ft, enabling identification and proving a knowing violation	Insufficient proof he slowed/stared or was within 1,000 ft; misidentification possible	Affirmed — trial court credited Samantha’s testimony that he slowed, stared, and was within 1,000 ft
Sufficiency/charging for stalking (course of conduct)	Charging papers alleged a course of conduct based on Jan 6, Jan 7, and a later Jan 7 incident; trial court instead relied on combining Sept 23 and Jan 7	State failed to prove two or more acts as charged; court’s post‑trial reliance on Sept 23 varied from the information and deprived notice	Reversed — State only proved one incident that matched the charging documents (Jan 7); stalking requires two or more acts, so evidence was insufficient; reversal also accords with variance principles

State v. Holland, 437 P.3d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (bench‑trial sufficiency review explained)
State v. Ayala, 504 P.3d 755 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (standard for reviewing bench‑trial findings)
State v. Gordon, 84 P.3d 1167 (Utah 2004) (bench‑trial sufficiency/clear‑weight standard)
State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (insufficiency where State presents no evidence of an essential element)
Spanish Fork City v. Bryan, 975 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (conviction must be supported by quantum of evidence on each element)
State v. Taylor, 378 P.2d 352 (Utah 1963) (accused entitled to be charged with a specific crime; State must prove substantially as charged)
State v. Burnett, 712 P.2d 260 (Utah 1985) (constitutional right to know nature and cause of accusation)
State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1987) (variance doctrine prevents prejudicial deviation from charging documents)