Criminal Harassment - Further Defined

Typically, when someone feels harassed, they are advised by law enforcement to get a harassment restraining order, which purportedly offers the protection sought from the harassing behavior. But, in more serious circumstances, the behavior may lead to a charge for criminal harassment. Criminal harassment can take many forms and is a statute that leads to a lot of ambiguity, necessitating a strong criminal harassment attorney to fight back if you are facing a criminal harassment charge.

What is Criminal Harassment?

Criminal harassment is a gross misdemeanor charge. To begin with, a harassing act must be done with an intent to “kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person” and then:

1. Places the other person in reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm (such behavior will more often be charged as a domestic assault, rather than criminal harassment);
2. Places the person in reasonable fear that the person’s family or household members will be subject to substantial bodily harm (same); or
3. Causes or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the other person.

A person commits criminal harassment if the person:

1. Directly or indirectly, or through third parties, manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act;
2. Follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means;
3. Returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;
4. Repeatedly makes telephone calls, sends text messages, or induces a victim to make telephone calls to the actor, whether or not conversation ensues;
5. Makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring;
6. Repeatedly mails or delivers or causes the delivery by any means, including electronically, of letters, telegrams, messages, packages, through assistive devices for people with vision impairments or hearing loss, or any communication made through any available technologies or other objects;
7. Knowingly makes false allegations against a peace officer concerning the officer’s performance of official duties with intent to influence or tamper with the officer’s performance of official duties; or
8. Uses another’s personal information, without consent, to invite, encourage, or solicit a third party to engage in a sexual act with the person.

Under some circumstances, these acts can be aggravated to a felony charge, such as when the harassment is based upon the victim’s race, color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or if a weapon is used at all.

Defining Criminal Harassment in Cases

In 2020, Minnesota updated its harassment statute to require proof of “substantial emotional distress.”  This change raised the bar for what qualifies as criminal harassment.  The law now specifically defines this term to mean, “mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish as demonstrated by a victim’s response to an act including but not limited to (1) seeking psychotherapy, (2) losing sleep or appetite, (3) being diagnosed with a mental health condition, (4) experiencing suicidal thoughts, or (5) having difficulty concentrating that results in lost productivity.” Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subd. 2(a)(4).

In a recent Court of Appeals case, the Court overturned a criminal harassment conviction. There, the defendant was convicted of harassing her neighbor through various unpleasant behaviors over several months.  These unpleasant behaviors included: name calling, making obscene gestures, and video-recording the victims.  The victims even stated they decided to move out of their house because “it was starting to be too much where I couldn’t even enjoy the outside of my house or take my dog on a walk or in the backyard.”

Despite this testimony, however, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence was insufficient to prove “substantial emotional distress,” as defined by the new law. In its consideration, the court had to decide whether the defendant’s conduct would “reasonably be expected to cause” substantial emotional distress. The court found that the evidence was based on circumstantial evidence, and the victim “did not experience mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish of such a high severity or that such mental distress, mental suffering, or mental anguish” would have caused her to move out of her house. Ultimately, while “rude, unkind, and unneighborly,” the evidence was insufficient to the definition of substantial emotional distress.

Contact a Criminal Harassment Attorney Today

This case highlights the importance of statutory interpretation. As society’s interpretation of emotional harm evolves, so do our laws. Which is why, if you’re involved in a harassment situation, it is always best to consult with an experience criminal harassment team, like we have here at North Star Criminal Defense.