A. Stalking consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct, without lawful authority, directed at a specific individual when the person intends that the pattern of conduct would place the individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint of the individual or another individual.

B. As used in this section:

(1) "lawful authority" means within the scope of lawful employment or constitutionally protected activity; and

(2) "pattern of conduct" means two or more acts, on more than one occasion, in which the alleged stalker by any action, method, device or means, directly, indirectly or through third parties, follows, monitors, surveils, threatens or communicates to or about a person.

C. Whoever commits stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

D. In addition to any punishment provided pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court shall order a person convicted of stalking to participate in and complete a program of professional counseling at the person's own expense or a domestic violence offender treatment or intervention program.

History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-3, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3; 2009, ch. 21, § 2.

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 7, repealed 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws 1995, ch. 23, § 1, and Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3, enacted a new section, effective July 1, 1997.

The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, deleted former Subsections A and B and inserted new Subsections A and B; and in Subsection D, added the domestic violence offender treatment or intervention program.

Evidence sufficient. — Evidence that defendant repeatedly trespassed onto victim's property and that defendant was the party who looked into victim's windows and followed her was sufficient to support convictions for stalking, harassment and criminal trespass. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other grounds, State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.

Double jeopardy. — When the defendant had been convicted of contempt, a misdemeanor, for violating a domestic violence protective order and sentenced to jail time, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of the defendant for the offenses of stalking and harassment stemming from the same conduct that gave rise to the contempt adjudication. State v. Gonzales, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185, cert. denied, 123 N.M. 229, 938 P.2d 204.

Where the state relies on identical acts of an accused involving the same course of conduct to prove both the offenses of harassment and of stalking, double jeopardy provisions preclude multiple punishment, and the offense of harassment is subsumed into the offense of misdemeanor stalking. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other grounds, State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.