Trent Breon Dean, 2014 WY 158

Trent Breon Dean was charged with felony stalking for contacting and harassing his estranged wife in violation of a protection order issued July 27, 2012; this appeal arises from his conviction after a second trial.
Before the order, Dean allegedly threatened, ransacked the marital home, followed and watched the victim, repeatedly called and texted her, showed up at her workplace despite being told to leave, and left a clock and notes on her office desk after she described him as a “walking time bomb.”
After the protection order issued, Dean continued calling and texting, allegedly attempted a nocturnal entry (damaged window/fan), and left a broken porch board with two pennies; police arrested him July 31, 2012.
The jury was instructed on stalking elements: intent to harass, a course of conduct reasonably likely to harass, and statutory definitions of “course of conduct” and “harass,” but was not instructed with the statute’s enumerated examples of harassing conduct (subsections (b)(i)–(iv)).
The jury convicted; the district court sentenced Dean to nine-to-ten years. On appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to specific intent to harass and (2) the adequacy of jury instructions for failing to include the statutory enumerated examples.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dean)	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence support specific intent to harass?	Circumstantial proof (threats, surveillance, repeated calls/texts, attempted entry, symbolic items) permitted a reasonable inference of intent to harass.	Conduct showed loving/reconciliation intent, not intent to harass.	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to infer intent to harass.
Jury instructions: Must jury be instructed with §6-2-506(b)(i)–(iv) enumerated examples?	The court’s instructions on elements and statutory definitions were correct and adequate; enumerated examples are nonexclusive and not required.	Failure to instruct on the enumerated combination requirement prejudiced Dean (plain error).	Affirmed: omission did not transgress clear law; no plain error.

Mraz v. State, 326 P.3d 931 (Wyo. 2014) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
Ken v. State, 267 P.3d 567 (Wyo. 2011) (sufficiency review principles)
Luplow v. State, 897 P.2d 463 (Wyo. 1995) (stalking requires specific intent to harass)
Leavitt v. State, 45 P.3d 831 (Wyo. 2011) (specific intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
Walker v. State, 302 P.3d 182 (Wyo. 2013) (interpretation of stalking statute; jury instruction principles)
Walker v. State, 267 P.3d 1107 (Wyo. 2012) (plain error/jury instruction standards)
Miller v. State, 904 P.2d 344 (Wyo. 1995) (purpose of jury instructions)
Burnett v. State, 267 P.3d 1083 (Wyo. 2011) (adequacy of jury instructions test)
Bloomfield v. State, 234 P.3d 366 (Wyo. 2010) (instruction adequacy and verdict reliability)