Texas Stalking Defense Lawyers

Stalking charges in Texas are more technically demanding than most people realize. Texas Penal Code §42.072 requires the prosecution to prove a specific pattern of knowing conduct and not just a single incident, not just fear, and not just unwanted contact. Understanding exactly what the statute requires, where the evidence falls short, and how digital communications are used and misused in these prosecutions is essential to an effective defense.

Deandra Grant Law has defended serious criminal charges across North and Central Texas for more than 30 years. Partner Douglas Huff has completed digital forensics training which is directly applicable to the text message, social media, email, and location data evidence that drives most stalking prosecutions.

Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense Helps Residents across Texas with Criminal Defense Matters – Including: Allen , Arlington, Belton, Cleburne, Collin County, Dallas, Denton, Fairview, Fort Worth, Frisco, Gainesville, Granbury, Hood County, Johnson County, Lewisville, Little Elm, McKinney, Park Cities, Parker County, Plano, Princeton, Richardson, Rockwall, Rowlett, Royse City, Southlake, Sunnyvale, The Colony, Waco, and Weatherford.

What Texas Law Requires: §42.072

Texas Penal Code §42.072 is more precisely defined than most people understand. The prosecution must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A course of conduct.  The defendant must have engaged in conduct on more than one occasion. A single incident is not stalking. The course of conduct must consist of two or more acts. Each act must be directed at the same person or a member of that person’s family or household.
2. Knowing mental state.  The defendant must have known or should have known that the other person would regard the conduct as threatening. This is an objective knowledge standard (not just what the defendant actually knew, but what a reasonable person in their position would have known about how the conduct was being received).
3. Conduct that would cause a reasonable person fear.  The conduct must be of a kind that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of bodily injury or death to themselves or a family or household member, to fear damage to or destruction of their property, or to feel terrorized, harassed, or annoyed to the point of suffering emotional distress. This is a dual objective standard: the conduct must be threatening both in the eyes of a reasonable person generally and in the context of what the specific victim experienced.
4. The conduct actually caused the victim fear or emotional distress.  The statute requires that the alleged victim actually experienced the qualifying response. This is a subjective element that the prosecution typically proves through the victim’s testimony and supporting communications.

All four elements must be proven. A prosecution that establishes unwanted contact without proving the reasonable person standard, or that proves the victim was afraid without establishing that the conduct would cause a reasonable person fear, has not proven the offense.

Penalties

First offense: Third-degree felony — 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

Second or subsequent offense: Second-degree felony — 2 to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

Stalking in violation of a protective order: The existence of a protective order at the time of the stalking conduct is an aggravating factor that affects both the charge and the sentencing exposure.

Digital Evidence: How Modern Stalking Cases Are Built and Challenged

The overwhelming majority of stalking prosecutions today are built on digital evidence: text messages, social media direct messages and posts, emails, call logs, GPS location data, and app-based communications. This digital record is where the prosecution finds its “course of conduct” evidence and it is also where the defense finds its most productive challenges.

Completeness and context.  A series of text messages presented as a course of threatening conduct may look entirely different when the full conversation thread is produced. Messages sent in response to provocation, messages that preceded the alleged stalking conduct, and the victim’s own communications are all part of the digital record that the defense is entitled to examine. Selective production of digital evidence (presenting only the defendant’s messages without the context of the exchange) is a challenge the defense should raise in every case.

Authentication and attribution.  The prosecution must establish that the communications were sent by the defendant. A phone number or account name is not sufficient. The prosecution must establish that the defendant controlled the device or account at the time of the communications. Shared devices, hacked accounts, impersonation, and account access by others are all factual questions the defense can raise.

Metadata and location data.  GPS data embedded in photos, location services logs from social media platforms, and cell tower records can establish where the defendant was (or was not) at the time of alleged physical following or surveillance. Location data that contradicts the prosecution’s narrative is exculpatory evidence the defense must obtain and analyze independently. Doug Huff’s forensics training means this data is better evaluated at the technical level, not just accepted as presented.

The reasonable person standard applied to digital communications.  Whether a particular series of text messages or social media interactions would cause a reasonable person fear or emotional distress is a question of characterization that the defense can contest. Communications that were persistent but not threatening, or that the recipient initially engaged with before later characterizing as unwanted, may not satisfy the reasonable person standard even if they were frequent or annoying.

The Relationship Between Stalking and Protective Orders

Stalking charges frequently arise in the context of an existing protective order. A person who has been served with a protective order and who then engages in a pattern of contact with the protected party faces exposure on two tracks simultaneously: the stalking charge under §42.072 and a separate protective order violation charge under Texas Penal Code §25.07.

A protective order violation is a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense, elevated to a third-degree felony if the defendant has a prior protective order violation conviction or if the violation involved the commission of an assault or stalking. These two charges can run in parallel, and the evidence for one frequently overlaps with the evidence for the other.

The existence of a protective order can affect the stalking analysis as well: conduct that might not rise to the level of a course of threatening conduct in the absence of an order may satisfy the knowing standard under §42.072 if the defendant was on notice through the order that the contact was unwanted and regarded as threatening.

Defense Strategies in Stalking Cases

Challenging the course of conduct.  Stalking requires conduct on more than one occasion. If two or more qualifying acts cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the offense is not established. The defense should evaluate each alleged act individually rather than accepting the prosecution’s characterization of the entire pattern.

Challenging the reasonable person standard.  Not every pattern of persistent unwanted contact satisfies the objective test. The defense can present evidence about the context of the relationship, the nature of the communications, and whether a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position would genuinely have experienced fear or terrorization (or annoyance).

Challenging the knowing mental state.  The defendant must have known or should have known the conduct was threatening. Evidence about the history of the relationship, prior communications between the parties, and the defendant’s actual understanding of how their conduct was being received is relevant to whether the knowing standard is satisfied.

Digital evidence challenges.  Completeness, authentication, attribution, and metadata accuracy are all grounds for challenging the digital evidence that forms the core of most stalking prosecutions.

False accusation defense.  Stalking allegations arising from contentious custody disputes, divorce proceedings, or employment conflicts can be motivated by factors other than the conduct alleged. The defense should examine the timing of the complaint, the relationship between the parties, and any pending civil or family court proceedings that give the complainant a collateral motive.

Why Deandra Grant Law

• ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist — both Deandra Grant and Douglas Huff. 
• Digital forensics training. Cell phone data, social media, CDR records, and metadata examined at the data level.
• 30+ years of criminal defense experience. 500+ trials to verdict across North and Central Texas.
• 17 published law books. Including Assault Charges in Texas
• Texas Super Lawyer since 2011. AV® Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell®.
• Offices in Dallas, Fort Worth, Allen, Denton, Waco, and Rockwall. North and Central Texas courts served directly.
• Federal defense capability. James Lee Bright handles federal charges in all four Texas federal districts.

If you are facing stalking charges in Texas, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation. Or schedule online at texasdwisite.com.