Mathias W. Delort
A state appeals panel ruled parts of the Illinois’ stalking and cyberstalking statutes unconstitutional after finding those laws did not take into account the accused’s mental state at the time.
Before Friday’s ruling from the 1st District Appellate Court, a person could be convicted of stalking and cyberstalking if they engage in behavior they “know or should know” would cause a “reasonable person” emotional duress or fearing for their safety.
But the 1st District panel found this standard to be inadequate in a criminal case. Instead, the intent of the accused must be taken into account.
The panel found that the law lacked a mens rea or “guilty mind” requirement. As a result, it violates the due process protections of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The law “bypasses ‘“the conventional requirement for criminal conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing”’ in favor of a reasonable person standard of criminality,” Justice Mathias W. Delort wrote in the 13-page opinion. “This is a standard which the due process clause does not permit.”
The 1st District’s ruling builds off the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Elonis v. United States.
Anthony Douglas Elonis had posted rap lyrics on his Facebook account that many, including his boss and his ex-wife, found to be threatening.
Elonis was convicted under federal law governing interstate threats. As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted, his conviction was “premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal requirement of ‘awareness of some wrongdoing.’ ”
The 1st District panel found that Elonis came two years after Walter Relerford was convicted of stalking and cyberstalking Sonya Blakey, the program director at the Chicago radio station WGRB-AM, Inspiration 1390.
Relerford was sentenced to six years in prison and four years of mandatory supervised release. But the 1st District’s ruling vacated his conviction.
In the fall of 2011, Relerford applied for a board operation position at the station; he had interned there the previous summer.
Blakey and another co-worker interviewed Relerford for the position, who later sent a follow-up e-mail about it.
He didn’t get the job, and it was at that point Relerford began sending multiple calls to Blakey and her colleagues at the station; Blakey herself said she received five e-mails. Soon, the station instructed its staff to not respond to Relerford.
In March 2012, Blakey said she saw Relerford standing outside the station with some friends. He waved at her; she testified the encounter frightened her.
A month later, Relerford walked into the studio unannounced while Blakey was broadcasting live.
Blakey testified she was startled and afraid by his presence said she “didn’t know what to expect with him being there.” He was escorted out of the building without a struggle.
Blakey said she received an e-mail from Relerford two days apologizing for his sudden appearance at the studio. However, Blakey said one of her colleagues sent her a series of Facebook posts Relerford had written.
In these Facebook posts, Relerford made a “thinly veiled threat” to the station’s employees if he didn’t get a job there and communicated his desire to sleep with Blakey.
It was after these Facebook posts Relerford was arrested. During cross-examination at the trial level, Blakey said she did not remember Relerford making direct threats against her or her colleagues.
Relerford was found guilty and sentenced in July 2013. According to state correctional records, Releford is incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center in Mount Sterling.
On appeal, Relerford challenged his conviction as a violation of the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the sections of the Illinois Constitution.
State lawmakers updated the stalking and cyberstalking statutes in 2009, and they contain nearly identical language on how a person violates the law if he or she knows or should know their behavior would be considering threatening to a reasonable person.
As a result, the 1st District panel’s ruling invalidates the “reasonable person” clauses of both statutes.
The law, however, also defines stalking and cyberstalking as behavior that poses a physical threat to another person. That definition was kept intact by the 1st Distrct panel.
A 5th District panel rejected a due process challenge to the state’s stalking statute in 2014, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis “compels a result different from that [case],” Delort wrote.
Relerford’s attorney, Assistant Appellate Defender Jonathan G. Yeasting, said the lawmakers wrote in 2009 was not actually a stalking statute.
“What the legislature had done is instead of writing a stalking statute, they wrote a negligent infliction of emotional distress (statute),” Yeasting said.
Yeasting said he has filed a bond motion to get his client released.
The state was represented by Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys Alan J. Spellberg, Annette N. Collins, Kathryn A. Schierl and Veronica Calderon Malavia.
Spellberg said the office was disappointed by the ruling, and it is reviewing its legal options.
Justices Mary K. Rochford and Thomas E. Hoffman concurred with the opinion.
The case is People v. Walter Relerford, 2016 IL App (1st) 132531.