State v. Simone
2005 N.H. LEXIS 171, 152 N.H. 755, 887 A.2d 135 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A course of conduct may be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to fear for their personal safety under a stalking statute, even without explicit threats of physical violence, if it involves obsessive, unrelenting contact combined with admissions of emotional instability and a disregard for police or court orders.
Facts:
- In January 2001, Coral Olson, a U.S. Census Bureau employee, conducted a survey at Frank Simone's home and gave him her business card with her home phone number.
- After the survey was complete, Simone began calling Olson to express personal interest; Olson informed him she was married and not interested.
- Simone persisted in calling, stating he had 'serious personal problems,' felt suicidal and 'out of control,' and threatened to ruin Olson's marriage and employment.
- Olson explicitly told Simone not to contact her, but he continued to call repeatedly.
- In August 2001, Olson contacted the Temple Police, and Officer Steven Duval spoke with Simone, telling him to cease contact.
- In October 2001, Olson obtained a protective order against Simone, but he continued to call her hundreds of times and send packages over the next two years.
- On June 11, 2003, Simone left several lengthy voicemails stating he had anger towards Olson, didn't care if he went to jail for '70 years', and acknowledged he had been stopped while traveling to her home late at night.
- On June 17, 2003, Simone left twenty messages for Olson in a two-hour period, repeatedly asking if she was home and begging her to answer.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2003, a Hillsborough County Grand Jury indicted Frank Simone on one count of stalking.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court (the state's trial court).
- At the close of the State's evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge, which the trial court denied.
- At the conclusion of all evidence, the defendant renewed his motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied again.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of stalking.
- The defendant filed a post-verdict motion to set aside the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant, Simone, appealed his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
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 a course of conduct involving years of relentless, unwanted phone calls, messages, and packages, in violation of police warnings and a protective order, coupled with the perpetrator's admissions of being 'out of control' and suicidal, provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the stalking statute's requirement that the conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for their personal safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, J.
Yes. A defendant's unrelenting course of conduct provides sufficient evidence to support a stalking conviction even without an explicit threat of violence. The court reasoned that even if 'fear for personal safety' requires a fear of physical violence, the evidence met that standard. A reasonable person could view Simone's obsessive and unrelenting calls, gifts, and disregard for a protective order, combined with his statements of emotional instability and suicidal ideation, as evidence that he posed a threat of physical violence. The court found that the totality of the circumstances—including Simone's admission of being stopped while traveling to Olson's home and his deceptive efforts to get information about her—demonstrated an obsession that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening. The victim's actual fear was sufficiently proven by her testimony that she lived 'in fear every day' and her frequent calls to the police.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that in New Hampshire, a stalking conviction does not require an explicit threat of physical violence. The court established that a pattern of obsessive behavior, coupled with evidence of the perpetrator's emotional instability and disregard for legal boundaries, can be sufficient for a jury to infer a reasonable fear of personal safety. This broadens the scope of prosecutable stalking conduct to include psychological and emotional intimidation, making it easier to convict individuals who engage in menacing behavior that falls short of overt threats. The ruling emphasizes a 'totality of the circumstances' approach, allowing courts to consider the cumulative effect of a stalker's actions on a victim's sense of safety.
