Background
L.M. and D.P. are longtime neighbors in Jefferson County whose relationship deteriorated over a disputed property boundary and allegations of unwanted surveillance. After D.P. built a privacy fence to block L.M.’s view of her yard, the conflict escalated. L.M. conducted burn activities near the disputed boundary, resulting in scorch marks on D.P.’s fence. While D.P. was on vacation, L.M. cut branches from a tree located in D.P.’s yard (claiming the branches extended into his property), which unobstructed his view of D.P.’s yard. L.M. then positioned a table and chair where he could observe D.P. in her yard.
D.P. installed eight metal posts along her fence line to restore privacy. L.M. responded by bending all eight posts into ninety-degree angles, claiming he was preventing D.P. from asserting adverse possession over the disputed strip of land. D.P. filed for a personal safety order (PSO) in magistrate court, which was granted. L.M. appealed to circuit court, which upheld the PSO after a bench trial. L.M. then appealed to the state’s highest court.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the PSO, holding that L.M.’s conduct constituted stalking under W. Va. Code § 61-2-9a(a). The statute requires a course of conduct directed at another person with intent to cause fear for personal safety or substantial emotional distress. The court found that L.M. “deliberately” (an intentional act) damaged D.P.’s metal posts and caused scorch damage to her privacy fence. These actions, coupled with the surveillance behavior of positioning furniture to watch D.P. in her yard, satisfied the stalking statute’s requirements.
The court rejected L.M.’s argument that he lacked intent, noting that the circuit court characterized his post-bending as “deliberate” conduct to which L.M. admitted. The court further found that D.P. suffered substantial emotional distress, evidenced by her medical treatment and anxiety medication. The court emphasized that property boundary disputes do not justify harassment or destruction of another’s property, and that a pattern of provocative conduct—including threats, property damage, and surveillance—collectively constitutes stalking even absent direct physical threats.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia stalking law covers a broad course of conduct including surveillance, property destruction, and threats directed at a specific person with intent to cause emotional distress.
- A property owner’s belief that property belongs to them does not justify deliberately damaging the property of another, and such destruction can support a stalking charge.
- Personal safety orders may be issued based solely on stalking conduct under W. Va. Code § 61-2-9a(a), without requiring credible threats of bodily injury.
- Courts will examine the cumulative pattern of provocative conduct to determine whether stalking occurred, rather than treating isolated incidents in isolation.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies West Virginia’s stalking statute and demonstrates that courts will broadly apply it to neighbor disputes involving multiple forms of provocative conduct. The holding establishes that stalking encompasses surveillance combined with acts of property destruction when directed at a specific person with intent to cause emotional distress—even in the context of underlying property disputes. This significantly expands the practical reach of personal safety order remedies beyond traditional stalking scenarios.
The decision also sends a clear message that property boundary disputes cannot justify harassment or destruction of a neighbor’s property. By refusing to consider L.M.’s adverse possession concerns as a legitimate justification for bending D.P.’s posts, the court encourages parties to resolve boundary disputes through proper civil channels rather than self-help measures that escalate conflicts into criminal stalking.