Provide a brief overview of the handout.
The text is a ruling made on a case between the state of Texas Versus Clement over his appeal after he was convicted of stalking his wife who wants to divorce him. The ruling touches on the constitutionality of the laws of the stalking statute applied in making the ruling and whether the evidence included is legally sufficient to justify the conviction of the defendant (Nathan Clements). The overall view of the subject is that the conviction of Clements is just since the Judge included evidence that was sufficient to convict the defendant and that the stalking statues used do meet the constitutional threshold required for a conviction. Therefore, the appeal by the applicant was thrown out and the conviction upheld.
What are the elements of the crime of stalking under the statute discussed in this case?
Stalking is the act of invading a person’s privacy by engaging in acts that cause the person psychological and even physical harm and possibly death. Under the statute of stalking used to determine the case Clements V Texas is section (1) where it states that the actor knows or reasonably believes that the other person will regard as threatening: (a) bodily injury or death for another person; (b) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household; or (c) that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property. (2) It causes another person or member of the other person’s family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property. (3) would cause a reasonable person to fear: (A) bodily injury or death for herself (B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household; or (C) that an offense will be committed against the person’s property. This statute is part of the Texas penal code and they became effective on January 23 1997. The main section under scrutiny with regards to the case under study is section (1) and whether the conviction of Nathan fulfilled the requirements stipulated here. The arguments presented by Judge Michael in his affirmation invalidate the arguments presented by the defendant (Nathan) who is trying to overturn his guilty verdict and a 12-month sentence given as punishment for the offense.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Do you agree with the court of appeals that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague?
Despite the clear evidence of the violation of the stalking statute, I do not think that there is any vagueness. The language is clear when it comes to what actions can be classified as ‘stalking’. The defendant was clearly in breach of the statute when you look at the available evidence of his actions. Furthermore, the said actions did cause the person (Jennifer) to have fear bodily injury and death. Even when Nathan tried to plead that the statute was infringing on his first amendment rights, the judge applied the vagueness test to the appeal and found that the statute passed it as all of the offenses stated were clearly stipulated. In fact, it was he who was infringing on Jennifer’s rights by stalking her, a behavior that certainly caused her to fear bodily injury or death. The judge was right by dismissing the appeal.
Is the evidence in this case sufficient to support a stalking conviction?
The evidence presented in court is clear that Nathan’s actions did affect Jennifer psychologically hence making him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial of defendant, evidence presented was clear about the intention to cause harm to the complainant (Jennifer). The verbal threats issued to her that he would use his gun on her should he discover that she was cheating on him (November 1996), and the defendant did attempt at destroying some of the complainant’s property like her car which happened in December 19 th 1996 at the Meadow Police department where he got out of his vehicle and headed for Jennifer’s car and started to hit it repeatedly. Nathan did, on a frequent basis, go to places where he knew his estranged wife was with the aim of stalking her. Be it the gym (February 18, 1997) where he would come and watch her as she worked out.
References
Stalking. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/stalking.html
Texas Stalking Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-stalking-laws.html
