Stalking is a serious offense under military law, reflecting the military’s commitment to protecting service members from harassment, intimidation, and threats. It is criminalized under Article 130 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was introduced as part of the 2013 amendments under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. The offense aligns with the broader efforts to address domestic violence, harassment, and misconduct affecting unit cohesion and readiness.

As court-martial defense lawyers, Cave & Freeburg, LLP, have experience and success in defending persons accused of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Call or email to discuss your investigation, charges, court-martial, or appeal.

II. Definition and Elements of Stalking Under Article 130, UCMJ

Article 130, UCMJ, criminalizes the act of engaging in a course of conduct that causes a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer substantial emotional distress. The offense contains the following key elements:

1. Course of Conduct – Repeated actions directed at a specific person, which include following, monitoring, threatening, or communicating with them in a manner that would cause fear.
2. Intent – The accused must have knowingly engaged in the conduct.
3. Objective Fear or Emotional Distress – The victim must either reasonably fear for their safety (or the safety of a third person) or suffer significant emotional distress.
4. Lack of Justification or Consent – The actions must be unwarranted and not justified by duty or consent.

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) provides further clarification, specifying that “substantial emotional distress” refers to a state of mental suffering that would significantly impair the person’s daily life. The crime requires a specific intent to harass or intimidate the victim.

III. Analysis of Stalking in Military Case Law

A. United States v. Sager, 76 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. 2017)
One of the most cited cases on stalking under the UCMJ is United States v. Sager, in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) upheld a conviction under Article 130. The accused engaged in repeated threatening behavior, including text messages and physical following of the victim. The court held that a pattern of communication or behavior that instills fear meets the threshold for criminal stalking under military law.

B. United States v. Mott, 72 M.J. 319 (C.A.A.F. 2013)
In this case, the accused was convicted of stalking after repeatedly harassing a fellow service member through electronic communications and in-person encounters. The CAAF reaffirmed that electronic means, such as social media and text messaging, could satisfy the requirement for a “course of conduct” under Article 130.

These cases underscore the military’s strict stance on stalking and the court’s interpretation that both physical and digital harassment can amount to criminal conduct.

IV. Congressional and Legislative Developments

Congress has taken significant steps to address stalking within the military. During the 2012 Congressional Hearings on Military Justice Reform, lawmakers highlighted the need for enhanced protections against harassment and stalking, particularly in the context of sexual harassment and intimate partner violence.

The House Armed Services Committee Hearings on Military Justice (2013) documented multiple instances where victims of stalking faced difficulty securing justice due to inconsistent enforcement of stalking provisions prior to the adoption of Article 130. The Defense Department’s Annual Sexual Assault Reports have also consistently recommended stronger enforcement of anti-stalking laws.

Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) officially codified stalking as an independent offense under the UCMJ, bringing it in line with civilian laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, the federal anti-stalking statute.

V. Academic and Policy Analyses

Legal scholars and military justice experts have extensively analyzed stalking within the military.

1. Major Evan R. Seamone, “Stalking and Cyberstalking in the Military,” Military Law Review, Vol. 215 (2013)
   • Seamone argues that the military’s unique environment, with its hierarchical structure and closed living conditions, exacerbates the impact of stalking. He advocates for enhanced protective measures for victims, particularly through expedited military protective orders (MPOs).
2. Professor Lisa A. Crooms, “Gender and Power in Military Justice: Addressing Stalking and Harassment,” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. 22 (2018)
   • Crooms explores the intersection of gender-based violence and military justice, emphasizing that stalking disproportionately affects female service members. She critiques the military’s historical reluctance to prosecute stalking aggressively and calls for greater enforcement mechanisms.
3. Congressional Research Service, “Military Justice: Recent Developments in UCMJ Stalking Laws,” CRS Report R45678 (2019)
   • This report provides an in-depth analysis of UCMJ reforms, highlighting the increased role of digital evidence in stalking prosecutions. It also discusses the challenges of enforcing anti-stalking laws in deployed environments.

VI. Challenges and Future Considerations

Despite legislative and judicial advancements, prosecuting stalking in the military presents unique challenges:

1. Proving Emotional Distress
   • Unlike physical assault, stalking often involves psychological harm, making it more challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Use of Technology in Stalking
   • With the rise of social media, cyberstalking has become a prevalent issue. Military courts increasingly rely on digital forensics to prosecute stalking cases effectively.
3. Command Discretion and Underreporting
   • Many stalking victims hesitate to report due to fear of retaliation or concerns that command will fail to take action. The military must improve reporting mechanisms and victim protections.
4. Interplay with Civilian Jurisdictions
   • In some cases, stalking occurs across military and civilian settings, leading to jurisdictional complexities. Coordination between military and civilian law enforcement remains crucial.

VII. Conclusion

Stalking under the UCMJ, codified in Article 130, represents a significant advancement in military justice. The military has recognized stalking as a threat to individual safety and unit cohesion, reinforcing its commitment to victim protection. Case law, congressional hearings, and scholarly analysis demonstrate that stalking is taken seriously within the armed forces, though challenges remain in enforcement and victim advocacy.

Military defense counsel know that the stalking statute as well as many other crimes under the UCMJ are complex.

If you are stationed in Germany, Italy, Spain, or the Middle-east, send an email and we’ll set up a time convenient to you to discuss your case and the military defense lawyers at Cave & Freeburg can help you.

The family of an Illinois National Guard soldier believes he was wrongly accused of possessing child pornography by a friend he had recently argued with. Rodney and Terri Miller told the Galesburg Register-Mail that their son, Specialist Billy Miller, had a falling out with a friend Afghanistan, and the friend subsequently reported seeing inappropriate pictures on Billy Miller’s laptop.

Chicago Press Release Services reports.

Test: Does this link to the same url load quicker. I’m experimenting with TinyURL for all links.

here

A U.S. Army lieutenant colonel facing court-martial on a shoplifting charge blames the Army for mistakenly reducing the medicine he takes to curb his urge to steal.

Army Times reports:

A former Fort Riley soldier who served 10 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit will receive a $7.5 million settlement, if the defendants approve the proposal.

This was a police misconduct coerced confession case apparently.

A little off topic, but generated as a result of the Major Hasan court-martial to be case at Fort Hood. This is not a new topic within the services, but it has achieved a new type of visibility it seems. Marine Corps Times reports:

Fallout from the investigation into the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, in November could bring an overhaul of the military’s officer evaluation system, a key lawmaker says. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed Services Committee chairman who has spent much of his congressional career studying the training and development of officers, said something must be done to ensure that evaluations of officers contain an honest assessment of their attributes and flaws.

The fact of a pending appeal does not defeat admission, but it may be brought up and discussed. Mil. R. Evid. 609(e).

A summary court-martial may not be used to impeach under this rule. There may be other ways to impeach with conduct subject to discipline at a summary court-martial, but not Mil. R. Evid. 609. (Further evidence that an SCM is not considered a “conviction?”)

Here is another reminder:

Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a conviction based on the ineffective assistance of defense counsel who failed to effectively challenge admission of defendant’s prior convictions for purposes of impeaching his credibility as a witness because the convictions had been reversed. United States v. Russell, 221 F.3d 615 (4th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-4117).

Under FRE 609(e), for purposes of attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness, the “pendency of an appeal” from a defendant’s conviction “does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible.” How does this rule operate once the appeal is decided? The Fourth Circuit examined this problem and decided that “[a]lthough the pendency of an appeal does not preclude use of such a conviction for impeachment purposes … it is elementary that once a conviction has been reversed, it cannot be used to impeach the accused.” Russell, 221 F.3d at 620 n.6.