State v. Craig
167 N.H. 361, 112 A.3d 559 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Posting messages on a public social media profile that are specifically directed at a person protected by a no-contact order constitutes an 'action to communicate' and can be considered prohibited indirect 'contact' under stalking statutes, especially when the poster has previously alerted the victim to the existence of the posts.
Facts:
- In late 2011, Brian Craig met the victim where she worked as a bartender and developed an unwanted fixation on her, staring at her and telling her he came to the restaurant just to see her.
- In April 2012, Craig mailed two letters to the victim at her workplace. The first letter mentioned that he had been speaking about her on his Facebook page.
- Alarmed, the victim contacted the Exeter Police, who served Craig with a stalking warning letter and a no-trespass notice for the victim's workplace.
- The next day, the victim received a third letter from Craig.
- A court issued a temporary restraining order against Craig prohibiting him from having any contact with the victim, which was served on him on April 24, 2012.
- Over the next several days, Craig posted a series of messages on his public Facebook page directed at the victim by name, referencing the restraining order, telling her what to say at the upcoming hearing, and threatening consequences if she did not comply.
- After being warned by her mother about the posts' severity, the victim searched for Craig's public Facebook page and read the messages, which she found appalling and scary.
- The victim reported the Facebook posts to the police, who confirmed their content and arrested Craig.
Procedural Posture:
- The victim filed a petition in Superior Court and was granted a temporary restraining order against Brian Craig.
- After the victim reported Craig's Facebook posts, the police arrested him.
- A grand jury indicted Craig for criminal threatening, witness tampering, and stalking.
- At the conclusion of the State's case in the Superior Court jury trial, Craig moved to dismiss all charges for insufficient evidence; the court denied the motion.
- The jury convicted Craig on all three charges.
- Craig (appellant) appealed his convictions for witness tampering and stalking to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does posting messages directed at a victim on a public Facebook page, after being served with a restraining order prohibiting contact, constitute an 'action to communicate' and therefore prohibited 'contact' under New Hampshire's stalking statute, even if the victim must affirmatively search for the page to view the posts?
Opinions:
Majority - Bassett, J.
Yes, posting messages directed at a victim on a public Facebook page after being served with a no-contact order constitutes prohibited 'contact' under the stalking statute. The statute's definition of 'contact' is broad, including 'any action to communicate with another either directly or indirectly.' By posting messages specifically addressing the victim on a public forum after having previously directed her attention to that forum, Craig took an 'action to communicate' indirectly. The victim's affirmative act of looking up the public posts does not negate the defendant's action, especially when he invited her inquiry and the posts were clearly targeted at her.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that public social media posts can constitute a violation of a no-contact order, thereby expanding the definition of 'contact' into the digital realm. It clarifies that a defendant cannot circumvent a restraining order by using a public forum instead of direct messaging, especially when the content is clearly targeted at the protected person. The court's focus on the defendant's intent and the calculated nature of the communication, rather than the specific medium or the victim's actions in viewing the content, sets a precedent for future cyberstalking and harassment cases. This decision makes it harder for perpetrators to use technological loopholes to continue harassment.
