United States v. Jovica Petrovic
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
701 F.3d 849 (2012)
Facts
M.B. resided in Missouri, where she and her ex-husband shared custody of their children. M.B.’s husband, Jovica Petrovic (defendant) resided in Florida. When M.B. informed Petrovic that she was ending their relationship, Petrovic sent text messages threatening to post on the Internet nude photographs of M.B., recordings of their sexual encounters, and M.B.’s text messages. M.B. nevertheless ended the relationship. Petrovic mailed to local businesses and M.B.’s workplace, relatives, and ex-husband’s home postcards displaying pictures of M.B. scantily dressed and advertising the website www.[M.B.]slut.com. The website contained images of M.B. posing nude or engaging in sex acts, M.B.’s text messages, and other private information. Petrovic also sent photographs of M.B. engaging in sex acts to M.B.’s workplace, relatives, and home. After M.B.’s sister had the website shut down, Petrovic relaunched it and posted a message stating he would shut it down if M.B. gave him his furniture, rings, and $100,000. Petrovic was convicted of interstate stalking and making interstate extortionate threats. On appeal, Petrovic argued that the interstate-stalking statute violated the First Amendment facially and as applied, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of interstate stalking, and the jury was erroneously instructed that a sexual relationship could constitute a thing of value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.