It was a case of what psychologists term “post-termination intrusive behavior.”

A male Vermont high school student was disappointed over a relationship with a female school friend. He sent her e-mails, waited for her after classes, and tried to meet her other places. She grew tired of his persistence and told him to back off.

Her father, police chief in a neighboring town, learned of the soured relationship. He contacted the state police and asked them to investigate the young man. The state police arrested, interviewed, and charged the young man with violating the state’s stalking law. He was convicted in criminal court of the charge, and sentenced.

For a soured relationship between two 17-year-old high school students to lead to a criminal conviction seemed unfair. The young man appealed his case to the Vermont Supreme Court, with counsel from the Defender General’s Office.

The Vermont Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the young man’s conviction, finding that the defendant’s conduct may have been “inappropriate”; however, the unanimous court said, “…we are reluctant to criminalize interactions that are highly emotional but are not likely to be precursors of violence.”

The court noted, “…this case involves high school students, and the behavior of defendant was often more awkward than deliberate.”

The legal issue the court grappled with in the decision was the grounds on which the stalking law can be invoked to bring criminal sanctions against someone. The law has been criticized by some as very broad. The standard for what constitutes stalking can be hard to determine.

The Supreme Court focused on “unlawful restraint” as the key element in the young man’s conviction. “We recognize the case is relatively close,” the court noted, “but we cannot conclude that a reasonable person would have feared that defendant would engage in unlawful restraint as a result of his conduct. Defendant’s conduct was inappropriate and inflicted emotional distress, but it was not criminal under the stalking law as it currently exists.”

Lawmakers have increasingly waded into areas where behavior that once might have been considered inappropriate or stupid is now considered criminal. Laws whose overall purpose may have been to prevent physical and/or sexual violence have instead snared adolescents dealing with issues around growing up. (The “sexting” provision of a recently passed sex offender law is an example of this broad reach.)

Read the decision State v. Ellis.

Tags: criminal law, vermont law