MEEKS v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Jul 30, 2026
F-2025-197
Versions:2026 OK CR 19

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant Lon Brandon Meeks appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Bryan County, Case No. CF-2023-318, for Stalking After Actual Notice of Protective Order, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1173(B)(1). The Honorable Mark Campbell, District Judge, presided over Meeks‘s jury trial and sentenced him to five years imprisonment in accordance with the jury‘s verdict. Judge Campbell ordered Meeks to serve three years in prison, suspending the last two years of the sentence as well as the $10,000.00 fine. Judge Campbell аlso awarded credit for time served post-verdict.

¶2 Meeks raises eight issues for review, two of which (one directly and one indirectly) challenge the stalking statute as applied in this case based upon the claim Meeks‘s prosecution violated his First Amеndment free speech rights. He asserts that posting a video rant about his ex-wife was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the stalking statute cannot be used to prosecute him for posting it. The State responds that his prosecution is not based upon the content of his message, but rather on the act of posting it on YouTube, and that such conduct integral to criminal activity enjoys no First Amendment protection. This is an interesting constitutional question, but one we need not settle in this case.

¶3 We find that Meeks‘s claim in his third proposition--that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction--requires discussion and relief. Because reversal is required on that claim, we need not address his other claims including the First Amendment challenge.1

FACTS

¶4 This case involves a nearly 40-minute YouTube video posted by Meeks in May 2023 that was forwarded to his ex-wife by her boss.2 According to his ex-wife, she and Meeks separated in 2018, divorced in 2019, and Meeks voluntarily terminated his parental rights to their daughter. She obtained an Emergency Protective Order against him in November 2019 in Bryan County Case No. PO-2019-167 because of harassment. After a contested hearing in January 2020, the district court issued a five-year protective order in April 2020, covering her and two of her children until April 3, 2025. The protective order forbade Meeks from, аmong other things, having contact with the listed individuals, directly or indirectly, including but not limited to calls, texts, emails, or communications via social media platforms ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍even if not sent directly to them. According to his ex-wife, Meeks did not cease his harassment after the protective order was entered, and he texted her family members and made posts on Facebook referencing her and her children, including photographs of them. After she reported his actions to police, Meeks was charged in January 2022 with a misdemeanor for violating a protective order. She testified that Meeks continued his harassment via posts on social media even after his misdemeanor arrest. In his May 2023 video, Meeks referred to her and her children by name multiple times but made no threats. Nevertheless, she testified that Meeks “said horrible things about our children” and that she felt threatened, intimidated, and harassed.

Analysis

¶5 Meeks argues his stalking conviction after actual notice of protective order must be reversed and dismissed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his YouTube video was directed toward his ex-wife.3 We agree.

¶6 The test we apply in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. The essential elements of stalking in violation of court order in this case were: 1) willfully; 2) maliciously; 3) repeatedly; 4) harassed another person; 5) in a manner that would cause a reasonable person; 6) to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened or harassed; 7) actually caused the person being harassed to feel, terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed; 8) a permanent protective order prohibited the defendant‘s actions; and 9) the defendant had actual notice of the issuance of the order. Instruction No. 4-30, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp.2000). The district court defined “harass” as “[a] pattern or course оf conduct directed toward a person that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim.” (emphasis added) Instruction No. 4-31, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp.2000). For conviction in this case, the State had to show thаt Meeks harassed his ex-wife with proof showing his conduct, i.e., posting the YouTube video on his personal YouTube channel, was directed towards her.

¶7 We have yet to construe the phrase “directed toward another individual” in Oklahoma‘s anti-stalking definition of “hаrasses“. We consider the phrase‘s plain and ordinary meaning with the goal of interpreting the phrase in accord with the Legislature‘s intent. See O‘Connor v. Oklahoma State Conference of NAACP, ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍2022 OK CR 21, ¶ 5, 516 P.3d 1164, 1165. Meeks‘s post was undeniably about his ex-wife, and we are not indifferent to the embarrassment and hаrmful emotional toll being the subject of a spiteful rant concerning one‘s personal life can have, especially in such a public forum as YouTube. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the offending post in this case was directed toward Meeks‘s ex-wife and this case illustrates that difference.

¶8 “Toward” and “about” are both prepositions. “Toward” generally indicates movement or direction. “Directed toward” is commonly understood to mean intended for or meant for a particular person. The preposition “about“, on the other hand, generally means on the subject of or concerning. Illustrative of this point is Spielmann v. Hayes ex rel. Hayes, 2000 OK CIV APP 44, 3 P.3d 711. In that case, a teacher obtained a protective order under 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 60.2 against a student who had threatened to kill the teacher‘s husband on the teacher‘s voice mail. Spielmann, 2000 OK CIV APP 44, ¶¶ 2-5, 3 P.3d at 712-13. The student challenged the teacher‘s standing to obtain a рrotective order, arguing the threat was directed toward the teacher‘s husband rather than the teacher. The definition of “harassment” in Section 60.1, like the definition of “harasses” in Section 1173(F)(1), required the objectionable conduct to be “directed аt a specific person.” The court rejected the student‘s standing challenge, recognizing that while the communication was about the teacher‘s husband, it was directed toward the teacher for the purpose of harassing her and influencing her actions, i.e., not to discipline her students under penalty of her husband‘s death. Id. 2000 OK CIV APP 44, ¶ 13, 3 P.3d at 714.

¶9 Meeks posted the subject video on a personal YouTube channel. There was no evidence he made any attempt to share the video with his ex-wife, i.e., he neither tagged her nor sent it to her. No evidence showed he made her aware of its existence and she acknowledged she had had no direct contact with or had spoken to Meeks for years. According to Meeks‘s ex-wife, she found out about the video when hеr boss sent her a link to it, and she made the decision to view its content of her own accord. No evidence suggested Meeks sent the video to her boss or had anything to do with her boss‘s discovery of the video.

¶10 Meeks‘s statements in the video also support thе finding that the video was not directed toward his ex-wife. Meeks begins the video with a caveat for any police officers watching that he is exercising his constitutional rights. He then explains to any police officers or “jury members” listening that he will be reading a letter he had written to the judge who presided over his protective order hearing. Though the letter was addressed to that judge, he states it is also meant for all the judges in Bryan County “because maybe y‘all need to pay attention to what‘s going on in y‘all‘s county.” As Mеeks reads the letter, he goes off script into tangents, talking about his ex-wife in unflattering ways. In closing, he reminds his viewers that he is simply exercising his constitutional rights in “reporting my news.” He says to them, “Love y‘all. Everybody have a good night. I‘m sorry I‘m missing my daughter. I‘m a little drunk tonight.” He concludes, nоting the people in his life must put up with him talking constantly about his victimization and observing that having one‘s child removed from their life, in his view, is worse than being raped. He ends, telling his audience again, “Love y‘all. Have a good night. Bye.”

¶11 Meeks‘s post on YouTube was his way of аiring his grievances with those involved in what he perceives as the unjust taking away of his daughter rather than harassing his ex-wife. As the court and prosecutor below observed, Meeks could have made the same statements about his ex-wife to people hе encounters (as he apparently often ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍does) without violating the protective order. The anti-stalking law is designed to shield a person from unwanted conduct directed toward them, meaning intended for their intake, and not to censor someone from randomly talking negatively about a private third party to others. In other words, “directed toward” limits communication to a person, not communication about a person.4

¶12 Cyber stalking former intimate partners is a growing societal problem, especially with the number of social media platforms that can be used to contact someone. The evidence presented at trial, however, failed to prove Meeks‘s video was directed toward his ex-wife. Instead, the evidence showed a purportedly jilted ex-husband engaging in a drunken rant to an internet audiеnce about his failed marriage and custody situation. Admittedly, he crudely explains his ex-wife‘s relationship history with him and other men to express his feelings of betrayal by her and the legal system. He is emphatic that he will forever call out the injustice inflicted upon him by his еx-wife and the legal system. This scenario in today‘s world is somewhat akin to the frustrated, drunken bar patron venting to everyone in the vicinity of his voice about the fallout from a bad romance and divorce. Unfortunately, doing so on social media platforms often has a far more widespread audience.

¶13 In sum, the definition of stalking applicable in this case required proof of willful, malicious, and repeated harassment of Meeks‘s ex-wife. Meeks‘s conduct did not constitute harassment because it was not directed toward his ex-wife. Accordingly, we find the evidence is insufficient to support his stalking conviction and hereby remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss.

DECISION

¶14 The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED to the district court with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MARK CAMPBELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

JAMES D. THORNLEY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
124 NORTH THIRD ST.
DURANT, OK 74701
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

JOE FREEMAN
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PUSHMATAHA COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY‘S OFFICE
204 S.W. 4TH ST.
ANTLERS, OK 74523
COUNSEL FOR STATE

RYAN HAYNIE
OCPA CENTER FOR
LAW & LIBERTY
1401 N. LINCOLN BLVD.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73104
AMICUS CURIAE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

DANNY JOSEPH
OKLAHOMA INDIGENT
DEFENSE SYSTEM
APPELLATE DIVISION EAST
111 N. PETERS, SUITE 100
NORMAN, OK 73069
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

GENTNER F. DRUMMOND
ATTY. GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
JAY T. SHANK
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.

LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur

MUSSEMAN, V.P.J.: Concur

LEWIS, J.: Concur

HUDSON, J.: Concur

Notes

1
When a case can be decided on two alternative grounds, one of which involves а constitutional question, courts should decide the case on the non-constitutional ground avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions. See, e.g., Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 136-37 (1946); Board of County Comm‘rs of Muskogee County v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, ¶ 14, 136 P.3d 639, 649. See also Brown v. Claims Management Resources Inc., 2017 OK 13, ¶ 27, 391 P.3d 111, 119-120 (“Because relief is available on alternative grounds, we ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍need not reach the constitutional issues presented.“).
2
The May 2023 video is titled “one_reason_men_shouldn‘t_get_married” and Meeks did not send the video to his ex-wife or communicate its рosting to her.
3
Oklahoma‘s anti-stalking statute provides in pertinent part:

A. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person in a manner that:

1. Would cause a reasonable person or a member of the immediate family of that person . . . to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; and

2. Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested,

shall, upon conviction, be guilty of the crime of stalking . . . .

B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section when:

1. There is a permanent or temporary restraining order, a protective order, an emergency ex-parte protective order, or an injunction in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subsection ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‍A of this section against the same party, when the person violating the provisions of subsection A of this section has actual notice of the issuance of such order or injunction . . .

shall, uрon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed fifteen (15) years, or by a fine not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1173(A), (B).

Section 1173(F)(1) defines “Harasses” as a “pattern or course of conduct directed toward another individual that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim.”

4
Although we do not today decide the constitutional question, we are mindful that a broader interpretation of the phrase “directed toward” could implicate First Amendment concerns. See, e.g., Terry v. Drummond, 2026 OK CR 10, ¶ 13, ___P.3d___ (statutes criminalizing pure speech “must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind.“) (quoting Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969)).