## Facts

- Coral Olson, a U.S. Census Bureau field representative, contacted Frank Simone in January 2001 to complete a census survey and left a business card with her home phone number.
- After the survey concluded, Simone continued calling Olson for personal reasons; Olson told him she was married, not interested, and instructed him not to contact her.
- Simone persisted, repeatedly calling and leaving messages until she answered; Olson did not initiate the personal calls and felt extremely uncomfortable.
- Simone stated he had serious personal problems and felt suicidal and out of control, and he threatened to ruin Olson’s marriage and sabotage her employment.
- In August 2001, Olson contacted police seeking cessation of contact; an officer spoke with Simone, but he continued attempting contact.
- In October 2001, Olson obtained a protective order prohibiting any contact by Simone; notwithstanding the order, he continued calling, sent packages she did not open, and Olson frequently contacted police from fall 2001 through June 2003.
- On June 11, 2003, Simone left multiple lengthy messages after being told again not to contact Olson, expressing anger and stating he knew he would die in jail.
- Olson testified that she lived in fear every day and could not predict what Simone might do.
- Simone was charged with stalking in October 2003 and convicted by a jury under RSA 633:3-a, I(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Simone’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in Olson’s circumstances to fear for personal safety, as required by RSA 633:3-a, I(a).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Olson actually feared for her personal safety due to Simone’s conduct, as required by RSA 633:3-a, I(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the stalking conviction.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt both (1) the objective reasonable-person fear element and (2) the victim’s actual fear.
- The court applied a sufficiency standard viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and declined to reweigh credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt when evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- For stalking under RSA 633:3-a, I(a), the State must prove both an objective component (conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for personal safety) and a subjective component (the victim actually feared for personal safety).
- Persistent unwanted contact over an extended period, especially after explicit requests to stop, police warnings, and a protective order, may support a finding of reasonable-person fear.
- Actual fear may be proved by the victim’s testimony and by circumstantial evidence such as repeated police contacts, obtaining protective orders, and the fact-finder’s assessment of the victim’s demeanor while testifying.

## Conclusion

Affirming the conviction, the court concluded that years of obsessive unwanted contact, threats and hostile messages, continued conduct despite police intervention and a protective order, and evidence of the victim’s fear and protective actions provided sufficient proof of both objective and subjective fear under New Hampshire’s stalking statute.


State v. Simone, 152 N.H. 755, 887 A.2d 135 (N.H. 2005)