State v. Simone

Facts

In 2001, Coral Olson was employed by the U.S. Census Bureau as a field service representative. In January 2001, Olson went to D's home to conduct a census survey. Olson gave D her business card with her home phone number and conducted several follow-up telephone calls and one follow-up personal visit to complete the census survey. D continued to call Olson. D told Olson that he was interested in her. Olson responded that she was married and not interested in him. D persisted in calling her. D told Olson that he had 'serious personal problems' and felt suicidal and out of control. Olson did not initiate any of these personal telephone calls. She felt extremely uncomfortable and did not want to talk to D. She told him not to contact her. If she did not answer the telephone, the defendant would call repeatedly and leave messages each time until she finally answered. D threatened to ruin Olson's marriage and sabotage her employment. On August 18, 2001, Officer Duval spoke with D about the situation. D continued to pursue contact with Olson. In October 2001, D obtained a protective order prohibiting the defendant from contacting her. D continued to call her. Olson testified that between the fall of 2001 and June 2003, the defendant placed more unwanted calls to her than she could estimate. D also sent Olson packages, which she did not open. As a result, Olson frequently contacted the police. Things began to escalate in June 2003 with longer and more disturbing and desperate messages. Olson called the police department, and Officer Duval came to her home. Olson received another telephone call from D just as Officer Duval arrived. Officer Duval took the telephone and spoke with the D for about twenty minutes. Even after speaking with Officer Duval, D called again and left a fourth message at 7:55 p.m. on June 11. Olson arrived home on June 17, 2003, to find twenty new messages from Don her answering machine. At 12:15 p.m., the defendant left a message that he 'was not going to jail for seven years.' At 12:23 p.m., the defendant said he was 'sorry it had to come to this.' At 12:28 p.m., he implored Olson 'not to return the things that are coming in the mail.' At 12:32 p.m., 12:36 p.m., 12:39 p.m., 12:45 p.m. and 12:47 p.m., the defendant asked whether Olson was home and begged her to answer the telephone. At 12:53 p.m., D said that he was sorry that he did not have her anymore, that he lost everything that he loved and that he caused her 'so much pain and anguish.' At 12:56 p.m., 12:58 p.m., 1:02 p.m., 1:05 p.m., 1:19 p.m., 1:25 p.m., 1:32 p.m., 1:39 p.m., 1:51 p.m., 1:59 p.m. and 2:15 p.m., the defendant again asked whether Olson was home and begged her to answer his calls. The next day, Olson called Officer Duval to report that she had received two packages from the defendant. On June 24, Olson reported to Officer Duval that she had received yet another package and a letter from the defendant. The defendant continued to call Olson and, on one occasion, the defendant said 'I love you' to her. A Grand Jury indicted D on one count of stalking. The State had to prove at trial that: (1) D knowingly engaged in a course of conduct; (2) targeted at Olson; (3) which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety; and (4) which actually placed Olson in fear for her personal safety. D was convicted and appealed. D contends that his conduct would not cause a reasonable person to fear physical violence because he never assaulted Olson or explicitly threatened her with violence, and he 'mostly apologized and expressed his continuing love' in his repeated telephone calls to her.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.