1

Crime of Stalking

<Name>

<Department, University Name>

<Course Name>

<Name of Professor>

<Date, Year>
 2

Crime of Stalking

In the article titled “What Constitutes the Crime of Stalking?”, a case between Clements

v. State is explained in detail. The defendant, Nathan Brian Clements filed an appeal on February

24, 2000 after being convicted of stalking in March 1999. His wife, Jennifer Clements, was the

one who reported Nathan Clements to the authorities in different occasions after repeated

instances of stalking behavior that would have otherwise caused bodily injury or death. Nathan

Clements appealed under the following grounds: that the evidence used was legally and factually

insufficient to support the stalking convictions that he faced, that the trial court failed to

acknowledge the activities that transpired before the date of the stalking decree, that the stalking

statute is unconstitutionally vague and that the trial court failed to acknowledge the evidence

presented on the events that occurred on the dates apart from the date of the offense.

The elements of crime of stalking under the statute discussed in the Clements v. State

case are an individual commits the offense if he/she, in more than one occasion and relative to

the same course of conduct or scheme, directs the actions to a specified person and knowingly

causes harm under the criteria listed. These criteria include: the knowledge or reasonable belief

that the other person will engage in behaviors otherwise regarded as threatening such as causing

bodily injury or death either on the specified person or his/her family, that the offense is

committed against the property of the other person, the actions cause the person or his/her family

members to live in fear of bodily injury or death, or that the offense would be committed against

the person’s/family’s property. Lastly, stalking entails causing a reasonable fear to the person

resulting from the fear of bodily injury or death to the individual or family members and the fear

that an offense would be made against a person’s property.

 3

In reference to this case, I do not agree with the court of appeals that the statute is

unconstitutionally vague. An unconstitutionally vague statue is one that inadvertently

criminalizes behavior that would otherwise be considered legitimate (OVC Archive, 2002).

Nathan Clements’ actions are not legitimate since they were directly aimed at causing both

physical and emotional harm to Jennifer Clements. One of the main arguments outlined in the

case is that the term ‘stalking’ has not been elaborated and could therefore be taken to mean

“following” in reference to the dictionary’s definition. There are numerous instances when

Nathan Clements exhibited behaviors that support ‘following’ his wife such as the close

proximity of the cars and the dismissal of traffic signs when Jennifer Clements was driving to

work, numerous encounters at the gym wherein Nathan Clements was reported to stare at

Jennifer Clements for an extended period and not engaging in any physical workout and Nathan

Clements calling his wife to inform her about being accompanied by the police despite his

absence when Jennifer Clements went to their apartment to pick her personal items.

The evidence in the case is more than sufficient to support a stalking conviction not only

because of the evident actions that constitute this criminal behavior but also the time/period

taken. In reference to the case, Jennifer Clements reports about her husband’s stalking tendencies

from December 1996 up to his arrest and conviction in March 1999. Furthermore, Nathan

Clements’ behavior before he kicked his wife out of their apartment was alarming, from

threatening to murder anyone who she was romantically involved in to inscribing the name of

one of his wife’s male friends on a bullet. These factors are likely to have caused great distress to

Jennifer Clements as she became fearful that her husband would either cause injury or death to

her loved ones (Dreke 2020, p.769). All these factors, including the pervasive stalking behaviors

outlined previously, necessitate the stalking conviction.

 4

References

Dreke, R.J., Johnson, L. & Landhuis, J. Challenges with and Recommendations for Intimate

Partner Stalking Policy and Practice: a Practitioner Perspective. J Fam Viol 35, 769–779

(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00164-2

OVC Archive (2002). Status of the Law. OVC Archive.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin1/2.html