Court clarifies the scope of the Civil Stalking Statute
Published 04/19/07

In an opinion issued April 12, 2007 the New Hampshire Supreme Court, in the case of Fisher v Minichiello , clarified the evidence a victim must present in order to obtain a civil stalking order.

A civil stalking order allows a victim to obtain court protection from an individual who is engaging in a course of conduct that threatens their safety. It is closely related to the domestic violence statute. However, the domestic violence statute is limited to conduct between "family or household members," such as souses, ex- spouses, or persons currently or previously cohabitating with each other. The civil stalking statute, however, is much broader and applies in those areas where the domestic violence statute would not reach.

To obtain a civil stalking order, the victim may show the defendant engaged in a course of threatening conduct towards him or her. One of the issues in Fisher was whether that course of conduct must be solely directed at the victim, or could it also be directed at other persons.

In Fisher , the victim was an employee of an assisted living center. The defendant's parents were residents of the center. The defendant was apparently upset about the care her parents were receiving. She was also upset because the center reported the defendant to the state Division of Elderly Services after the defendant allegedly physically abused her parents.

During her interactions, the defendant made threats both to the victim and to co-workers. In one incident, she, in response to a letter sent by the victim, allegedly left a telephone message for the victim indicating she [the defendant] planned to retaliate against her. In another incident she entered the kitchen area and threatened the staff. As a result of those threats the victim sought a civil stalking petition.

The district court found in favor of the victim and the defendant appealed. On appeal, the defendant argued that the threats must be directed solely at the victim before a stalking order could be issued. The victim argued that the threats may be directed either at her or co-workers. The Supreme Court held that the district court properly considered the threats directed at the victim's co-workers in deciding whether the victim had introduce sufficient evidence to obtain a civil stalking order and upheld the district court's decision.

Andrew J. Piela is an associate attorney at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes civil litigation, family law, land use litigation and probate. You can reach Attorney Piela by e-mail at: apiela@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.