United States v. Jovica Petrovic
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25462
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Petrovic and M.B. had a relationship from 2006, married 2009, then divorced; they lived across Florida and Missouri with shared child custody issues.
- Petrovic kept thousands of private text messages and private information about M.B.; he secretly recorded sexual encounters and created a website exposing her private material.
- After M.B. ended the relationship in December 2009, Petrovic threatened to post the materials online and ruin her life unless she reconciled.
- Petrovic mailed dozens of harassing postcards to M.B., her workplace, family, and others, featuring her image and abusive language directing readers to a website.
- The website (public March 2010) contained nude/sex-act images of M.B. and the private text messages, including intimate material about her and family, with broad circulation and multiple families and businesses as recipients.
- Petrovic was arrested in July 2010; grand jury indicted him on four counts of interstate stalking and two counts of interstate extortionate threat.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment challenge to § 2261A(2)(A) as applied | Petrovic contends the statute punishes protected speech | State interest in preventing stalking/harassment justifies restrictions on speech | Communications were not protected; statute upheld as applied |
| Facial validity of § 2261A(2)(A) | Overbroad; sweeps protected speech | Applications mostly outside protected speech; safe as to as-applied harms | Statute not facially invalid; overbreadth not proven |
| Mistrial denial based on Coyne's testimony | Testimony improperly advised guilt; denial error | Curative instruction could have cured prejudice; waiver occurred | No reversible error; any prejudice cured or harmless given substantial evidence |
| Jury instruction that a sexual relationship can be a thing of value under § 875(d) | Instruction allowed conviction based on intangible value | 'Thing of value' includes intangible objectives like a sexual relationship | Instruction proper; sexual relationship may constitute thing of value under § 875(d) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for § 2261A(2)(A) and § 875(d) convictions | Evidence insufficient on intent/substantial emotional distress | Evidence supports intent and harm; preexisting issues irrelevant | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test of incidental restriction on speech when combined with nonspeech elements)
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949) (speech integral to criminal conduct not protected when linked to crime)
- Coplin v. Fairfield Pub. Access Television Comm., 111 F.3d 1395 (8th Cir. 1997) (regulating private-issue disclosures may be permissible without compelling interest)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content-neutral restrictions on speech; protected vs. unprotected categories)
- United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004) (overbreadth concerns limited; some applications may be valid)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury requires independent fact-finding; willful false testimony)
- Stulock v. United States, 308 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2002) (district court must determine perjury by preponderance of the evidence)