¿ì»îÊÓƵ

When determining a stalking protective order, there is no requisite mental state; Speech can be considered a "contact" for the purpose of a civil stalking protective order.

Holm (Respondent) appeals the trial court’s granting of a stalking protective order. Holm and T.M.B. (Petitioner) live in the same housing development, where issues have arisen over the homeowner’s association, creating animosity between the parties. Holm’s actions caused T.M.B. to file for a stalking protective order. Holm appeals the trial court’s granting of a stalking protective order, claiming that the trial court erred in taking into consideration his speech and in failing to require a culpable mental state. However, the Court found that when the speech was taken into consideration, it did constitute a contact because Holm’s continued attempts to engage T.M.B. were with the intent to alarm or coerce. As such, the trial court was correct in finding there was sufficient contact for the issuance of a stalking protective order in accordance with the statute. With respect to the culpable mental state, the Court relied on their previous decision in Delgado v. Souders to determine there was not a requisite mental state. Instead, the statute focuses on the effect on the victim. As such, the trial court did not err in failing to consider the mental state. Affirmed.