Read the Capstone Case (Clements v. State, 2000) in Chapter 8, pages 255-257.

Assume that you are the trial court judge who is deciding this case on the original facts as presented in the text. The case was tried "to the court" -- that is, there was no jury, and you as the judge decide both the facts and the law. We call this a "bench trial." Also assume that the text of the stalking statute is as set forth in the case, and that the statute has already been found to be constitutional. As judge, you must decide whether to convict the defendant of violating the statute. Note that this specific question was not decided by the appellate court in the case reproduced in the text. All the appellate court found was that a conviction would not be contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Your task is now to decide whether, if you were the lower court judge,you would have convicted. Analyze the facts objectively and explain your conclusion in detail, incuding:

• What are the elements of the crime of stalking under the statute discussed in this case?
• Do you agree with the court of appeals that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague?
• Is the evidence in this case sufficient to support a stalking conviction?