Article 130 — Stalking | Manual for Courts-Martial

Part IV · Punitive Articles

Article 130. Stalking · MCM ¶ 80

2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States

(a) Text of statute.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person subject to this chapter—

(1) who wrongfully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner;

(2) who has knowledge, or should have knowledge, that the specific person will be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner; and

(3) whose conduct induces reasonable fear in the specific person of death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner; is guilty of stalking and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term “conduct” means conduct of any kind, including use of surveillance, the mails, an interactive computer service, an electronic communication service, or an electronic communication system.

(2) The term “course of conduct” means—

(A) a repeated maintenance of visual or physical proximity to a specific person;

(B) a repeated conveyance of verbal threat, written threats, or threats implied by conduct, or a combination of such threats, directed at or toward a specific person; or

(3) The term “repeated”, with respect to conduct, means two or more occasions of such conduct.

(4) The term “immediate family”, in the case of a specific person, means—

(A) that person’s spouse, parent, brother or sister, child, or other person to whom he or she stands in loco parentis; or

(B) any other person living in his or her household and related to him or her by blood or marriage.

(5) The term “intimate partner”, in the case of a specific person, means—

(A) a former spouse of the specific person, a person who shares a child in common with the specific person, or a person who cohabits with or has cohabited as a spouse with the specific person; or

(B) a person who has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the specific person, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.

(b) Elements.

(1) That the accused wrongfully engaged in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner;

(2) That the accused had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, that the specific person would be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner; and

(3) That the accused’s conduct induced reasonable fear in the specific person of death or bodily harm, including sexual assault, to himself or herself, to a member of his or her immediate family, or to his or her intimate partner.

(1) Bodily Harm. “Bodily harm” means any offensive touching of another, however slight, including sexual assault. See subparagraph 77.c.(1).

(2) Threat. “Threat” means a communication, by words or conduct, of a present determination or intent to cause bodily harm to a specific person, an immediate family member of that person, or intimate partner of that person, presently or in the future. The threat may be made directly to or in the presence of the person it is directed at or towards, or the threat may be conveyed to such person in some manner. Actual intent to cause bodily harm is not required.

(d) Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

(e) Sample specification s. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction, if required), (on or about _____ 20 __) (from about _____ to about _____ 20 __), engage in a course of conduct directed at ________, that would cause a reasonable person to fear (death) (bodily harm, to wit:_______), to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner); that the accused knew or should have known that the course of conduct would place ______ in reasonable fear of (death) (bodily harm, to wit _____) to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner); and that the accused’s conduct placed ______ in reasonable fear of (death) (bodily harm, to wit:_____) to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner).

Information on this tab is reproduced from the U.S. Army Military Judges’ Benchbook (Electronic Benchbook v2.70, updated 2026-05-26). It is for informational purposes only to compare to the text on the Manual for Courts-Martial on the MCM tab. Always check the current EBB to make sure you’re reviewing the most recent information.

3a-80-1STALKING

NOTE. 1: Review the Supreme Court opinion of Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) before charging and instructing on the offense of Stalking.

NOTE. 2: If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.

Maximum punishment

DD, TF, 3 years, E-1. (Category 2)

NOTE. 3: The 2024 NDAA added the term “a dating partner,” throughout. This change became effective 22 December 2023. The President amended Part IV of the MCM to reflect the changes with Executive Order 14130 effective 20 December 2024.

Sample specification

In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), (on or about __________) (from about __________ to about __________), engage in a course of conduct directed at __________, that would cause a reasonable person to fear (death) (bodily harm, to wit: __________), to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner) ((his)(her) dating partner); that the accused knew or should have known that the course of conduct would place __________ in reasonable fear of (death) (bodily harm, to wit: __________) to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner) ((his)(her) dating partner); and that the accused’s conduct placed _________ in reasonable fear of (death) (bodily harm, to wit: __________) to (himself) (herself) (a member of (his) (her) immediate family) ((his) (her) intimate partner) ((his)(her) dating partner).

Elements

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused wrongfully engaged in a course of conduct directed at (state the name of alleged victim), that is: (state the conduct alleged), that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or bodily harm (,including sexual assault,) to himself/herself, to a member of his/her immediate family, to his/her intimate partner, or to his/her dating partner;

(2) That the accused knew, or should have known, that (state the name of alleged victim) would be placed in such fear; and

(3) That the accused’s conduct induced a reasonable fear in (state the name of alleged victim) of death or bodily harm (,including sexual assault,) to himself/herself, a member of his/her immediate family, his/her intimate partner, or his/her dating partner.

Definitions & other instructions

“Conduct” means conduct of any kind, including use of surveillance, the mails, an interactive computer service, an electronic communications service, or an electronic communication system.

“Course of Conduct” means a repeated maintenance of visual or physical proximity to a specific person; a repeated conveyance of verbal threats, written threats, or threats implied by conduct, or a combination of such threats, directed at or towards a specific person; or a pattern of conduct composed of repeated acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.

“Threat” means a communication, by words or conduct, of a present determination or intent to cause bodily harm to a specific person, an immediate family member of that person, or intimate partner of that person, presently or in the future. The threat may be made directly to or in the presence of the person it is directed at or towards, or the threat may be conveyed to such person in some manner. Proof that the accused actually intended to cause bodily harm is not required.

“Repeated” means on two or more occasions.

(“Immediate family” means a person’s spouse, parent, brother, sister, child, or other person to whom one stands in loco parentis; or any other person living in one’s household and related to them by blood or marriage.)

(“Intimate partner” means a former spouse of the specific person, a person who shares a child in common with the specific person, or a person who cohabits with or has cohabited as a spouse with the specific person; or a person who has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the specific person, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.)

NOTE. 4: Again, the 2024 NDAA added the term, “a dating partner,” after “an intimate partner.” This change became effective 22 December 2023. The President amended Part IV of the MCM to reflect the changes with Executive Order 14130 effective 20 December 2024.

(The term ‘dating partner,’ in the case of a specific person, means a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with such specific person based on a consideration of- (A) the length of the relationship; (B) the type of the relationship; (C) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship; and (D) the extent of physical intimacy or sexual contact between the persons involved in the relationship.”) The relative weight given to each of the named criteria in making the “dating partner” determination may vary depending on the facts and circumstances presented.

“Bodily harm” means any offensive touching of another, however slight (, including sexual assault).

“Wrongful” means without legal justification or authorization.

NOTE. 5: Other instructions. The following modified Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent and Knowledge), is ordinarily applicable to advise the members concerning the required knowledge.

I have instructed you that you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew, or should have known, that (state the name of alleged victim) would be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to (himself/herself) (a member of his/her immediate family) (his/her intimate partner). This element may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

The accused had the required knowledge if (he) (she) actually knew that (state the name of alleged victim) would be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to (himself/herself) (a member of his/her immediate family) (his/her intimate partner) by the accused’s course of conduct.

NOTE. 6: If the charged course of conduct involves ONLY speech, then skip to the next NOTE. If the charged course of conduct involves acts, with or without speech, then provide the following instruction.

(To prove “should have known,” the government must establish that the circumstances were such as would have caused a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to know that (state the name of the alleged victim) would be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to (himself/herself) (a member of his/her immediate family) (his/her intimate partner) by the accused’s course of conduct. In deciding this issue, you must consider all relevant facts and circumstances.)

NOTE. 7: Greater mens rea required when alleged threat involves ONLY speech. In light of the Supreme Court opinion in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), if the course of conduct alleged involves only speech, then provide the below instruction instead of the instruction following the NOTE above.

(To prove “should have known,” the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused consciously disregarded a substantial risk that (state the name of alleged victim) would be placed in reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to (himself/herself) (a member of his/her immediate family) (his/her intimate partner) by the accused’s course of conduct.)

NOTE. 8: Causation. If causation is in issue, see Instruction 5-5, Causation, Intervening Cause, Contributory Negligence.

Source: Instruction 3a-80-1 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil