INTHEUTAHCOURTOFAPPEALS ooOoo AionaButters, PetitionerandAppellee, v. NathanGaryHerbert, RespondentandAppellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FourthDistrict,ProvoDepartment,100402656 TheHonorableJamesR.Taylor Attorneys: MichaelJ.PetroandSaraF.Lucas,Provo,forAppellant StephenQuesenberry,JessicaGriffinAnderson,andMarkR.Nelson, Provo,forAppellee BeforeJudgesOrme,Davis,andThorne.

e. ORME,Judge: 1 AionaButtersobtainedatemporarycivilstalkinginjunctionagainstNathan GaryHerbertfollowingaseriesofincidentsthattookplaceoverseveralyears.Aftera twodayhearing,thedistrictcourtgrantedButtersathreeyearstalkinginjunctionas wellasherattorneyfeesandcosts.Herbertnowappealsthedistrictcourtsdecision. Weaffirm. OPINION CaseNo.20110310CA FILED (November23,2012) 2012UTApp329

BACKGROUND 2 Thebackgroundwesetoutfollowsthedistrictcourtsextensivefactualfindings.1 ButtersshistorywithHerbertstretchesbacktoDecember2004,shortlyafterHerbert wentonaseriesofdateswithButtersssister.Butterswaswithhersisterandother relativesinastorewhenoneofherrelativesspottedHerbertoutside.Notwantingtobe seen,thewomenhidinthebackofthestore.Herberthadalreadyspottedthem, however,andapproachedthemimmediatelyuponentering.Heaskedifthewomen werehidingfromhim,andButtersssisterconfirmedthattheywere.Thiswasthefirst timethatButtershadeverseenHerbert,andshespecificallyrememberedhimstaring directlyather. 3 Notlongafterthatinitialincident,ButtersencounteredHerbertwhileexercising atagym.Duringherworkout,awomaninformedherthatamanbehindherwas staringatherandtouchinghimselfinappropriately.Buttersturnedaroundtofind Herbertstaringdirectlyatherwithhishandtouchinghisgenitalarea.Aftershemade eyecontactwithhim,Herbertquicklylefttheareawithoutsayinganything.Butterswas uncertainwhetherHerberthadbeenfondlinghimself,astheotherwomanbelieved, anddecidedtogivehimthebenefitofthedoubtandtrytoforgettheincident.Shedid, however,tellhersisteraboutit. 4 InMarch2005,onlyabrieftimeafterthegymincident,Buttersssisterobtaineda civilstalkinginjunctionagainstHerbertafterhechokedher.Thestalkinginjunction prohibitedHerbertfrommakingcontactwithButtersssisterandwithButtersherself, apparentlybecauseofthegymincident.ThatinjunctionwasinplacefromMarch2005 untilMarch2009,duringwhichtimeButtersdidnothaveanyproblemswithHerbert. 5 Withinonemonthaftertheexpirationofthatstalkinginjunction,however, ButtersagainencounteredHerbert,thistimeatagrocerystore.Asshewaswalkinginto thestore,Butterssawavehiclespeedinginherdirection.Thecarcametoastop,and ButterssawthatHerbert,whomsheimmediatelyrecognized,wasbehindthewheel.

Wenotethatthedistrictcourtmeticulouslylaidoutitsfindingsoffactand credibilitydeterminations,includingitsincourtobservationsofthepartiesbody language,appearances,andreactions.Itdidsoorally,inrulingfromthebench,asis permittedbyrule52.SeeUtahR.Civ.P.52(a).

20110310CA

Sherushedintothestore,thenturnedaroundtoseeHerbertscarrepeatedlycircling hervehicle.Thiswentonforseveralminutes.Havingrememberedthetouching incidentatthegymandthatHerberthadchokedhersisteryearsearlier,Butterswas mortified,scared,andreallyupsetbyHerbertsconductintheparkinglot.From insidethestore,Butterscalledthepolicetoreporttheincident. 6 Onlythreemonthslater,HerbertconfrontedButtersintheparkinglotofa shoppingmall.Butterswasstandingbehindhervehiclepreparingtoenterthemall whenHerbertapproachedher,camewithinafewfeetofher,andsilentlystaredather. Butters,whoatthetimewasonthephonewithherhusband,said,Ohmygosh, [Herbert]isstandingrightherestaringatme.Immediatelyaftershesaidthis,Herbert retreatedbehindapillarjustinfrontofthemallentrance.Fromthatvantagepoint, HerbertcontinuedtostareatButtersuntilsheputherbelongingsbackinhercarand droveaway.Butterswasawarethatarestrainingorderhadpreviouslybeeninplace thatdirectedHerberttostayawayfromthemall,growingoutofanincidentinwhich hebotheredafemaleemployeeofadepartmentstoreatthemall.AfterButtersleft,she notifiedmallsecuritythatHerbertwasonthepremises. 7 InAugust2010,justoveroneyearafterthemallincident,anotherconfrontation occurredatthegym.2AsButtersenteredthegymfromtheparkinglot,Herbertwalked outandlookedatherwithaglazedfixatedlookoverhisface.Buttersspecifically askedhimtoleaveheraloneandwentintothegym.Onceinside,Buttersturnedaround tolookforHerbertandsawhimoutside,circlinghervehicleonfoot.Afraidforher safety,Buttersaskedoneofthegymemployeesifshecouldstandbyhim.Herbertthen reenteredthegymandmovedthroughdifferentexerciseareaswhileconstantly watchingButters,whorefusedtobealoneanywhereinthegym.Butterseventually calledthepolicefrominsidethegymandwasadvisedtogotothepolicestationtofill outthenecessaryformsforobtainingastalkinginjunction.3Aftershefiledthenecessary
2

Intheinterimbetweenthemallincidentandthesecondgymincident,Butters cameacrossHerbertatapubliclibrary.AlthoughthedistrictcourtfoundthatHerbert smiledatButterswhileinthelibrary,thecourtconcludedthatnootherovertactions weredirectedtowardsButters,rejectinghertestimonytothecontrary. Butterswenttothepolicestationtoobtaintheformsthatsameday.Herbert apparentlyshowedupatthepolicestationataboutthesametime,althoughthedistrict (continued...)

3

20110310CA

paperworkwiththecourt,atemporarystalkinginjunctionwasgrantedonAugust10, 2010.Herbertrequestedahearing,whichwasheldthreemonthslater.Afterconsidering thetestimonyandevidence,thedistrictcourtenteredathreeyearstalkinginjunction againstHerbertandawardedattorneyfeestoButters.Herbertappeals.

ISSUESANDSTANDARDOFREVIEW 8 Herbertchallengesthedistrictcourtsdeterminationthathisactionsconstituted acourseofconductdirectedatButters.4SeeUtahCodeAnn.765106.5(2)

3

(...continued) courtdidnotfindanyfactsindicatingthatHerbertknewButterswouldbethere.The natureofhispolicebusiness,ifany,isnotintherecord. ItappearsthatHerbertsfirstchallenge,asbriefed,improperlyconflatestwo separateanddistinctissues.Ontheonehand,Herbertsargumentsseeminglychallenge thedistrictcourtsfactualfindingsindicatingthathisactionsweredirectedatButters, findingswhichwereviewforclearerror,seeEllisonv.Stam,2006UTApp150,17,136 P.3d1242.Ultimately,though,Herbertchallengesthecourtslegaldetermination, premisedonthosefactualfindings,thatHerbertengagedinacourseofconductas definedbythestalkingstatute,seeUtahCodeAnn.765106.5(2)(LexisNexisSupp. 2012),adeterminationthatwereviewforcorrectness,seeBottv.Osburn,2011UTApp 139,5,257P.3d1022. WedeclinetoreviewHerbertsfactualchallengebecausehehasnotmethis marshalingburden.Apartychallengingafactualfindingmustidentifyeveryscrapof competentevidenceintroducedattrialwhichsupportstheveryfindingstheappellant resistsandthenferretoutafatalflawinthesupportingevidence.WestValleyCityv. MajesticInv.Co.,818P.2d1311,1315(UtahCt.App.1991)(emphasisinoriginal).Absent therequisitefatalflaw,afindingwillstandeventhoughthereisamplerecord evidencethatwouldhavesupportedcontraryfindings.Kimballv.Kimball,2009UT App233,20n.5,217P.3d733.Herberthasnotmetthisburden.Althoughhefusses overperceivedinconsistencies,credibilityissues,andcontradictorytestimony,Herbert hasnotpointedtoanyfatalflawintheevidencesupportingthefindings,norhashe explainedhowanyoftheallegedevidentiarydeficienciesrenderthecourtsfindings legallyuntenable.Becauseofthisfailure,wetakethedistrictcourtsfactualfindingsas (continued...)
4

20110310CA

(LexisNexisSupp.2012).5Healsocontendsthatthedistrictcourterredinconcluding thatareasonablepersoninButtersspositionwouldhavesufferedemotionaldistress. Seeid.Theproperinterpretationandapplicationofastatuteisaquestionoflawwhich wereviewforcorrectness,affordingnodeferencetothedistrictcourtslegal conclusion[s].Ellisonv.Stam,2006UTApp150,16,136P.3d1242(quotingGutierrez v.Medley,972P.2d913,91415(Utah1998))(alterationinoriginal). 9 Lastly,Herbertclaimsthatheisentitledtoanawardofattorneyfeesincurred duringboththedistrictcourtproceedingsandthisappeal.Whetherattorneyfeesare recoverableinanactionisaquestionoflaw,whichwereviewforcorrectness.Valcarce v.Fitzgerald,961P.2d305,315(Utah1998).

ANALYSIS 10 Forpurposesofthestatutegoverningcivilstalkinginjunctions,stalkingmeans thecrimeofstalkingasdefinedin[thecriminalstalkingstatute].UtahCodeAnn.77 3a101(1)(LexisNexisSupp.2012).Thecriminalstalkingstatuteprovides,inrelevant part,asfollows: Apersonisguiltyofstalkingwhointentionallyor knowinglyengagesinacourseofconductdirectedata specificpersonandknowsorshouldknowthatthecourseof conductwouldcauseareasonableperson:

(...continued) ourstartingpoint.Seeid.Allthatremains,then,isHerbertslegalchallengetothe districtcourtsdeterminationthatHerbertsactionsconstitutedacourseofconduct. SeeUtahCodeAnn.765106.5(2). Followingtheeventsgivingrisetothisaction,theapplicablestatutory provisionshavenotbeenrevisedinamannermaterialtothiscase.Therefore,wecite thecurrentversionoftheUtahCodeasaconveniencetothereader.

5

20110310CA

(a)tofearforthepersonsownsafetyorthesafetyofathird person;or (b)tosufferotheremotionaldistress. Id.765106.5(2).Herbertcontendsthathisactionsdonotconstitutetherequisite courseofconductbecauseeachoftheincidentsinvolvinghimandButtersarerelatively innocuouswhenviewedinisolation.Hefurtherassertsthathisactionsdonotconstitute stalkingbecausetheyweretoosporadicandnotoutrageousenoughtohavereasonably causedButterstosufferemotionaldistress.Neitherargumentispersuasive. I.CourseofConduct 11 HerbertsbizarreconfrontationswithButtersclearlyconstitutethekindof courseofconductcontemplatedbythestalkingstatute.Thestalkingstatutedefinesa courseofconductas twoormoreactsdirectedatortowardaspecificperson, including: (i)actsinwhichtheactorfollows,monitors, observes,photographs,surveils,threatens,or communicatestooraboutaperson,or interfereswithapersonsproperty: (A)directly,indirectly,or throughanythirdparty;and (B)byanyaction,method, device,ormeans;or (ii)whentheactorengagesinanyofthe followingactsorcausessomeoneelseto engageinanyoftheseacts:

20110310CA

(A)approachesorconfrontsa person[.] Id.765106.5(1)(b). 12 Asthestatutemakesclear,asingleisolatedactcannotqualifyasacourseof conduct.Seeid.Stalking,byitsverynature,isanoffenseofrepetition,Ellison,2006UT App150,28,andcanbeaccomplishedonlyifmultipleactsdirectedataspecific personarelinkedtogether.Accordingly,wedonotconsiderindividualactsina vacuumwithoutregardforthesurroundingfactsandcircumstances.Seeid.(notingthat anincidentspecificanalysiswouldcontradicttheplainintentofthestalkingstatute). SeealsoAllenv.Anger,2011UTApp19,22,248P.3d1001(Asingleincident,no matterhowoutrageous,cannotconstituteacourseofconduct[.]).Instead,when determiningwhetherapersonsactsconstituteacourseofconduct,ourcasesrequire thatweconsidertheactscumulativelyinlightofallthefactsandcircumstances. Ellison,2006UTApp150,38. 13 Inperformingacumulativeanalysis,weconsiderthetimeelapsedbetween individualincidents.SeeCoombsv.Dietrich,2011UTApp136,15,253P.3d1121.We alsobearinmind,however,thatcourseofconductisdefinedbroadlyanddoesnot requirethattheactionsthatconstituteacourseofconductbecommittedwithina certainperiodoftime.Id. 14 Usingthedistrictcourtsfactualfindingsasourstartingpoint,weeasily concludethatHerbertsactionsconstituteacourseofconductdirectedatButters.In April2009,HerbertdirectlyconfrontedButtersbyspeedingtowardsherinagrocery storeparkinglotandthencirclingherparkedvehicleforseveralminutes.Threemonths later,HerbertbothapproachedandobservedButtersinamallparkinglotwhenhe camewithinmerefeetofher,silentlystaredather,andcontinuedtowatchherafter retreatingtothemallsentryway.Thesetwoeventsweresufficienttoestablishthe requisitecourseofconduct,butButtersdidnotseekaninjunctionuntilapproximately thirteenmonthslater,whenHerbertagainconfrontedherbybothcirclinghercarthis timeonfootandreenteringagymbehindherandwatchingher. 15 Theseepisodesshouldnotbeviewedinavacuum.Itissignificantthatthis sequenceofeventsbeganontheheelsoftheexpirationofafouryearstalking injunctionobtainedbyButtersssister,whichalsoextendedtoButters.Itisparticularly

20110310CA

noteworthythatafterfourconfrontationfreeyearswhilethefirstinjunctionwasin effect,ButterssawHerbertcirclinghervehiclealmostassoonasthatinjunctionexpired. 16 Theensuingsequenceofeventsgoeswellbeyondanythingthatcouldpossibly bedismissedasaseriesofcoincidentalandinnocuousincidents.Notably,eachofthe eventsinvolvedHerbertsilentlyfixatingonButterswhileincloseproximitytoher, circlinghervehicle,orboth.Suchconductclearlyconstitutesapatternofdirectly approachingandconfrontingButtersandreadilyestablishesthatHerbertengagedina courseofconductdirectedather. II.FearforSafety 17 Stalkingoccursonlywhenanindividualengagesinacourseofconductdirected atsomeoneelsethatwouldcauseareasonableperson(a)tofearforthepersonssafety orthesafetyofathirdperson;or(b)tosufferotheremotionaldistress.UtahCodeAnn. 765106.5(2)(LexisNexisSupp.2012)(emphasisadded).Herbertmaintainsthatthe districtcourtimproperlyconcludedthathisactionswouldcauseareasonablepersonto sufferemotionaldistress.Moreover,heasksustodecidewhethertheoutrageousand intolerablerequirementfromSaltLakeCityv.Lopez,935P.2d1259,1264(UtahCt.App. 1997),anditsprogenystillappliestothestalkingstatuteinlightofthestatutes2008 amendment,whichexplicitlydefinedemotionaldistress,6seeUtahCodeAnn.765 106.5(1)(d)(LexisNexisSupp.2012).Whilesomevariantsofemotionaldistressrequire moreelaborateanalysis,weneednotdecideLopezscontinuedvitalitybecausewe concludethatHerbertscourseofconductwouldcauseareasonablepersontofearfor hersafety.Fearingforonessafetyistheonevariantofemotionaldistressthatis specificallymentionedinthestatute.Seeid.765106.5(2)(a).Thus,weneednotlook beyondthatfactortoconsiderwhetherHerbertsconductwouldcauseareasonable person...tofearforthepersonsownsafety...ortosufferotheremotionaldistress. Seeid.765106.5(2)(a)(b).

Thedistrictcourtdidnotdiscussthegoverningstandardforemotionaldistress orwhetherSaltLakeCityv.Lopez,935P.2d1259(UtahCt.App.1997),isstillrelevantin lightofthe2008statutoryamendmentsadoptionofanemotionaldistressdefinition. ThecourtmerelyconcludedthatHerbertkneworshouldhaveknowntheconduct wouldcauseareasonablepersoninherplacean[d]inthosecircumstancestosuffer emotionaldistress.

20110310CA

18 Aswithourcourseofconductanalysis,wedonotviewtheincidentsin isolationwhendeterminingwhetherareasonablepersoninButtersspositionwould fearforhersafety.SeeCoombsv.Dietrich,2011UTApp136,13,253P.3d1121.Rather, weevaluatewhetherthecourseofconductconsideredinthecontextofthe circumstanceswouldcauseareasonablepersontofearforhersafety.Id.Wenotethat thestatutedoesnotrequirethatactualfearbeexperiencedbythetargetedindividual, butonlythatthecourseofconductwouldcauseareasonablepersontofearforher safety.SeeBottv.Osburn,2011UTApp139,8,257P.3d1022. 19 InApril2009,ButterswatchedHerbertrepeatedlycirclehervehicleforseveral minutes.Thatconductbyitselfisalarming,buthadthatbeenthefirstencounterwith Herbert,itislikelythatareasonablepersonmayhavesimplythoughtthewholething oddbutdismisseditwithoutfurtherconcern.PerhapsHerbertwaslookingforafriend whiletryingtoconfirmthatthiswashiscarorsimplyadmiringafavoritemodelof automobile.Butwhen,ashere,themancirclingButterssvehiclewasnotastrangerbut rathertheverysamemanwhohadpreviouslychokedhersisterandstaredatherina gymwhiletouchinghisgenitalarea,aninnocentexplanationdoesnotsoreadily emerge.Indeed,areasonablepersonwouldmostcertainlybeafraidforhersafetyif, giventheirpriorhistory,Herbertcontinuallyshowedupanddeliberatelybrought himselfintocontactwithherevenifhisconductdidnotamounttoovertviolence.In sum,weconcludethatareasonablepersoninButtersspositionwouldfearforher safety. III.AttorneyFees 20 Thecivilstalkingstatuteprovidesdistrictcourtswithdiscretiontoaward reasonableattorneyfeestoeitherparty.SeeUtahCodeAnn.773a101(16)(LexisNexis 2008)(Afterahearingwithnoticetotheaffectedparty,thecourtmayenteranorder requiringanypartytopaythecostsoftheaction,includingreasonableattorneyfees.). ThedistrictcourtawardedButtersherattorneyfeesandcosts.Ithaslongbeenaccepted thatstatutesauthorizingattorneyfeeawardsincludeattorneyfeesonappeal.See Valcarcev.Fitzgerald,961P.2d305,319(Utah1998).Moreover,whenapartythatwas awardedattorneyfeesbelowprevailsonappeal,thatpartyisalsoentitledtofees reasonablyincurredonappeal.Id.(quotingUtahDeptofSoc.Servs.v.Adams,806P.2d 1193,1197(UtahCt.App.1991)).

20110310CA

21 Astheprevailingpartyonappealwhowasawardedfeesbelow,Buttersis entitledtoherattorneyfeesreasonablyincurredonappeal.Weremandtothedistrict courtforadeterminationofthatamount.

CONCLUSION 22 HerbertsconfrontationswithButtersclearlyconstituteacourseofconductas definedbythestalkingstatute.Moreover,Herbertscourseofconductwouldhave causedareasonablepersoninButtersssituationtofearforhersafety.Weaffirmthe districtcourtsimpositionofathreeyearstalkinginjunctionandawardButtersher reasonableattorneyfeesincurredonappeal.Weremandtothedistrictcourtfora determinationofthatamount.

____________________________________ GregoryK.Orme,Judge 23 WECONCUR:

____________________________________ JamesZ.Davis,Judge

____________________________________ WilliamA.ThorneJr.,Judge

20110310CA

10