State v. McCarthy
Montana Supreme Court
980 P.2d 629 (1999)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Roman McCarthy (defendant) had a sporadic romantic relationship with a woman named Karen that spanned 15 years. When the relationship soured, Karen obtained a permanent order of protection against McCarthy. The order directed McCarthy not to harass, intimidate, or contact Karen personally or through a third party. McCarthy obtained a similar protective order against Karen. Despite both court orders, McCarthy telephoned and wrote letters to Karen. McCarthy was charged and convicted of stalking Karen. While incarcerated, McCarthy mailed a letter addressed to Karen and to Gloria Edwards, a victim witness coordinator in the county attorney’s office. The coordinator opened the letter, read its contents, and gave the letter to a police detective. The coordinator contacted Karen and informed her of the letter’s contents. The following week, McCarthy mailed a letter directly to Karen. Karen did not open the letter, but instead reported the incident to the police. The State of Montana (plaintiff) charged McCarthy with a second staking offense. At the close of the state’s case and again at the close of the evidence, McCarthy moved to have the charge dismissed. The trial court denied the motions. McCarthy was convicted. McCarthy appealed, arguing that the two letters, neither of which Karen read, were insufficient to support the conviction for stalking.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Turnage, C.J.)
Dissent (Trieweiler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
