Workshop for Beginning Legal Writing Teachers - AALS

Workshop for Beginning Legal Writing Teachers
Repeatedly Follows
The Washington state stalking statute, RCW 9A.46.110(6) defines “follows” as
following:
(b) “Follows” means deliberately maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific
person over a period of time. A finding that the alleged stalked repeatedly and
deliberately appears at the person’s home, school, place of employment, business,
or any other location to maintain visual or physical proximity to the person is sufficient
to find that the alleged stalker follows the person. It is not necessary to establish that
the alleged stalker follows the person while in transit from one location to another.
The Washington State stalking statute, RCW 9A.46.110(6) defines “repeatedly” as
following:
(e) “Repeatedly” means on two or more separate occasions.
State v. Ainslie provides a useful and hard to find clarification on what types of facts
contribute to establishing the element of repeatedly follows. State v. Ainslie, 103 Wn. App.
1, 6-7, 11 P.3d 318 (2000). In that case, the defendant argued that “because he did not
deliberately maintain contact with a specific person,” the defendant argues that it could have
been possible that he was following anyone who happened to be around. However, The
Court reiterated the fact that the defendant had been seen parked in front of the mailboxes
near the victim’s house only at times when the victim was home, that he got out of his car
once while the victim was walking by and even was seen in the victim’s yard once. The
most important fact for the Court of Appeals in Ainslie was that the defendant was only
seen in the victim’s neighborhood while the victim was there, but not while the victim was
away in Spokane, Wa., and then seen again when the victim returned.
First the State will successfully be able to prove that Mr. Pemberque ‘repeatedly’ parked
in front of the Lani residence. The facts show that on at least two separate occasions the
City of Federal Way Police Department observed Mr. Pemberque parking in front of the
Lani residence.
The State will also argue that that the defendant in this case is much like the defendant
in Ainslie; Mr. Pemberque repeatedly followed the victim by appearing repeatedly and
deliberately appearing at the victim’s home in order to maintain visual contact with the
victim. Also the state will argue that Mr. Pemberque was only seen parking in front of the
house during corresponding times when the victim was home, and not at his place of
employment.
We may be able to argue that unlike the facts in Ainslie that helped to establish that the
defendant in that was repeatedly following that victim, our defendant never got out of his
car. He was never seen leaving his car, making contact with the victim, or on the victim’s
property. We may also argue that because Mr. Pemberque was sitting in a car on his own
street, that it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pemberque was
following a specific person, and that like the defendant’s argument in Lee, Mr. was simply
48