Intent in Stalking Cases: What the Stalker Meant to Do

One of the most frustrating things a stalking victim can hear is, "He probably didn't mean any harm." The person may have called dozens of times, followed you home, or sent gifts after you asked him to stop, and yet he insists he was only trying to show he cared. Victims wonder whether that claim will be enough to erase what they have lived through.

Under many stalking laws, what the stalker meant to do does matter. Lawyers call this intent. But courts have developed clear ways of deciding intent, and they rarely rely on the stalker's own explanation. This article explains what intent means, how it varies from state to state, and how your evidence can show it. Our guide to understanding stalking laws covers the broader legal picture.

What "Intent" Means in Plain Language

Intent is the mental side of a crime. It answers the question, "Did the person act on purpose?" Stalking laws use different words for this idea, including purposeful, intentional, knowing, willful, and malicious. Malicious generally means acting with the desire to cause harm or distress without a good reason.

Intent is separate from what the stalker did. The acts, such as calls or following, are one part of the case. Intent is the second part, and the prosecution usually has to prove both.

Why States Use Different Standards

Each state writes its own statute, so the intent requirement is not the same everywhere. Some laws require that the person meant to harass, frighten, or threaten the victim. Others require that the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that the behavior would cause fear. Some focus on the stalker's state of mind, and others also focus on the victim's.

Lawyers also distinguish between general intent and specific intent crimes. A specific intent crime requires proof that the person acted with a particular goal. In one Wyoming case, the state supreme court held that stalking there is a specific intent crime because the statute requires that the act be done "with intent to harass another person." Under the federal interstate stalking law, prosecutors must show that the defendant crossed state lines with the intent to stalk.

How Courts Decide What a Stalker Intended

No one can read another person's mind, so courts look at behavior. Proof of intent in stalking is similar to proof in other crimes. Judges and juries consider the surrounding circumstances, the words the person used, and the pattern of conduct.

Strong evidence of intent often includes:

• Obscene language, insults, or death threats in calls and messages
• Contact that continues after the victim, police, or a court says to stop
• Following, watching, or showing up where the victim is
• Damaging property or spreading embarrassing claims about the victim
• Evidence that the person planned ahead, such as searching for the victim's schedule

In one Louisiana case, a man made many calls a day at all hours, cursed the victim, threatened to kill her, and appeared near her home to stare at her and shake his fist. When she obtained a restraining order, he said it would not matter. The court found that his conduct was willful, malicious, and repeated and that he meant to put her in fear.

When the Conduct Speaks for Itself

In many prosecutions, the defendant's conduct is so outrageous that intent is obvious. A South Dakota court considered a neighbor dispute in which a man watched children through binoculars, drove past their home thirty-five times in one day, confronted the children repeatedly, and filed false complaints. The court found that the evidence supported a finding of intentional, vexatious conduct.

"I Was Only Showing I Cared"

Stalkers often claim they were trying to express love or win someone back. Courts are familiar with this. One court observed that stalkers can hold an irrational belief that their conduct will eventually bring the victim's love and affection. That belief does not excuse the behavior. A person can sincerely feel affection and still break the law by repeatedly contacting someone who has said no.

Knowing the Law Is Not Required

A defendant does not have to know that stalking is illegal. In one Illinois case, the court explained that the state did not have to prove the defendant knew his actions were unlawful. It only had to show that he knew he was following or watching the victim. Being unaware of the law is not a defense.

Stalking.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that offers free tools and plain-language guides to help people build a clear record. Read our position statements to see how we advocate for stronger protection.

Other Acts Can Help Show Intent

Courts sometimes allow evidence of a stalker's other bad acts to shed light on his intent. If a person has stalked or harassed other people, that pattern can help show what he intended toward you. This is a complicated area of law, and judges decide what to allow, so ask an attorney how it might apply in your case.

How to Show That the Person Knew You Said No

Because intent often depends on what the person knew, proof of notice is powerful. Make it easy for a judge to see that the person understood contact was unwanted:

• Send one clear, written message stating that contact must stop, and keep a copy
• After that message, do not respond, and save every attempt to contact you
• Keep protective orders, police warnings, and reports that show the person was told to stay away
• Save any replies in which the person acknowledges your request, even if he dismisses it
• Record the dates of each incident that happens after you said stop

Before you send any message to a stalker, speak with an advocate about your safety. In some cases, even a single message could provoke escalation.

What to Do Next

If you are worried about how a court might see the stalker's intent, focus on the facts you can control. Keep a running log, save evidence, and ask officers to write reports. Our article on course of conduct in stalking explains how a pattern of behavior helps prove what someone meant.

Intent is proven by what a person does, not only by what a person says he meant.