District Court, West Jordan Department The Honorable Bruce C.
Lubeck No. 151400888
Simarjit S. Gill and Breanne M. Miller, Attorneys for
Nathalie S. Skibine, Attorney for Appellee
DIANA HAGEN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K.
ORME and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER concurred.
A jury convicted Miller of one count of stalking based on
evidence that Gregory Ryan Miller sent emails disparaging the
victim (K.B.) to her employer (the company). After the jury
delivered its verdict, Miller filed a motion to arrest
judgment. The district court granted the motion, determining
that no reasonable jury could find that Miller (1)
intentionally or knowingly engaged in a course of conduct
directed at K.B. and (2) knew or should have known that the
course of conduct would cause a reasonable person fear or
emotional distress because Miller did not know that K.B.
would read the emails. See Utah Code Ann. §
76-5-106.5(2) (LexisNexis 2014). The State appeals. We
conclude that the State was not required to present evidence
that Miller knew or should have known that his emails to the
company would reach K.B. to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Miller's conduct amounted to stalking. We therefore
reverse and remand to reinstate the jury's verdict.
Miller and K.B. met in 2003 or 2004 while working at the same
accounting firm, and there were "periods of time"
that they were "close friends." In 2011, K.B. found
herself underemployed and Miller assisted her in obtaining a
higher paying job with the company, a security system
provider, where Miller was also employed. Miller held the
position of financial controller and K.B. was hired as a
In August 2012, Miller came across an invoice billed by a law
firm for research conducted on the rights of convicted felons
to have ownership interests in security system companies in
the several states in which the company operated. The invoice
identified the felon in question as the chief executive
officer and one of the owners of the company. Based on his own
research, Miller concluded that the owner was illegally
operating in the industry. Around this time, Miller and
K.B.'s friendship began to deteriorate, which K.B.
attributed to her refusal to be involved in Miller's plan
to blackmail the owner.
¶4 Without K.B.'s support, Miller eventually
confronted the owner about his criminal past and Miller's
employment at the company was terminated the following day.
After the company terminated his employment, Miller entered
into negotiations with the company regarding his severance
package. But according to Miller's testimony, the
negotiations came to a sudden halt after Miller learned that
K.B. had provided the company's attorney with damaging
information regarding Miller.
Following his termination, K.B. notified Miller that she no
longer wished to remain in contact with him. Nevertheless,
Miller continued to call her cell phone, call her work phone,
email her, and text her about work and her personal life.
Such communications included a suggestion that she find new
employment as he intended to notify authorities that the
company was illegally operating in the industry, accusations
that K.B. was a traitor, requests that K.B. provide him a
good work reference, racial slurs about K.B.'s boyfriend,
and requests to meet her boyfriend. K.B. asked Miller to stop
Despite her requests, Miller continued to contact K.B. by
phone and email and would appear in public places that K.B.
typically frequented. K.B. notified the police and in August
2013, she obtained a civil stalking injunction against
Miller. The injunction stated, in relevant part:
Do not stalk [K.B.]. This means you must not follow,
threaten, annoy, harass, or cause distress to [K.B.]. For a
legal definition of stalking, see Utah Code, sections
76-5-106.5 and 77-3a-101.
Do not contact, phone, mail, e-mail, or communicate in any
way with [K.B.] and any person listed below, either directly
or indirectly. Other people you must not ...