Stalking (RSA 633:3-a)

See RSA 7:41. Address Confidentiality Program for Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking, or Sexual Assault.

See RSA 458:16. Temporary Relief and Permanent Restraining Orders.

See RSA 597:2, VI

See RSA 625:9. Classification of Crimes

See RSA 633:3-a. Stalking.

See RSA 644:4.

'We have held that “when issuing a stalking order in response to a civil petition filed pursuant to RSA 633:3–a, III-a, the trial court must make findings on the record that a defendant engaged in two or more specific acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.” That holding established conformity between the requirements for civil stalking orders under RSA 633:3–a and protective orders under RSA chapter 173–B, as directed by RSA 633:3–a, II(a). We reasoned that “in order to be consistent with our interpretation of RSA 173–B:5 ... we must conclude that RSA 633:3–a, II(a), which also contains an enumerated list of prohibited conduct, likewise requires specific findings of the course of conduct, which is defined as two or more acts.” Thus, we required that the trial court identify two or more specific acts that constitute prohibited conduct as enumerated in the statute; we did not mandate any more specificity than what the statute itself requires.'

'Here, the defendant raises two issues. First, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Second, she argues that the trial court's decision contravenes RSA 633:3-a and RSA chapter 173-B and therefore is erroneous as a matter of law and public policy.'

'Following a jury trial in Superior Court (Delker, J.), the defendant, Brian Craig, was convicted on one count of criminal threatening, RSA 631:4 (Supp.2014); one count of witness tampering, RSA 641:5 (2007); and one count of stalking, RSA 633:3-a (Supp.2014). The convictions were based on a series of messages that he posted on his Facebook profile page in April 2012 that were directed to the victim. At the conclusion of the State's case, the defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss all three charges. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the witness tampering and stalking charges for insufficient evidence. He does not challenge his conviction for criminal threatening. We affirm.'

'A person commits stalking by “[p]urposely, knowingly, or recklessly engag[ing] in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person's immediate family, [if] the person is actually placed in such fear.” RSA 633:3–a, I(a). A “course of conduct” consists of “2 or more acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.” RSA 633:3–a, II(a) (2016). Before issuing a stalking order of protection, the trial court must make specific findings on the record that the defendant engaged in two or more such specific acts. The trial court must limit its findings to the factual allegations specifically recited in the stalking petition.'

'[W]e note that we have never held that the specific acts constituting a course of conduct are limited to those acts that are enumerated by the statute. To the contrary, we have observed that “the statute, through its use of the phrase ‘may include, but not be limited to,’ provides that the enumerated acts do not constitute an exhaustive list. When a statute sets forth a nonexhaustive list of acts, we have held that other acts which are similar may be considered.'