Ploeger v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, as applied to appellant, stalking statute was not unconstitutional despite his claim he was only courting victim; and in light of the evidence his conduct was removed from First Amendment protection
• relying on evidence of victim’s manifestation of fear over three years and her avoidance of going to her church and gym because of stalker’s actions to find reasonable fear existed
• stalking statute not fadally overbroad or vague because statute specifically provides what conduct is prohibited and subject to prosecution, and statute was not unconstitutional, as applied, because defendant’s conduct was not protected by First Amendment
• stating stalking complainant’s testimony that she feared appellant would harm her supported jury’s findings
• discussing prior version of stalking statute and concluding jury rationally could have concluded frequency, escalation, content, unsolicited nature of actor’s conduct, and actor’s displays of at least some anger would have caused a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).