State v. Barney

2025 UT App 153

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
DEVIN STIRLING BARNEY,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20240178-CA
Filed October 23, 2025

Fifth District Court, Cedar City Department
The Honorable Matthew L. Bell
No. 231500205

Dylan T. Carlson, Debra M. Nelson, Benjamin Miller,
and Wendy M. Brown, Attorneys for Appellant
Chad E. Dotson and Sam E. Woodall,
Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE AMY J. OLIVER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES
DAVID N. MORTENSEN and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.

OLIVER, Judge:

¶1 Samantha 1 told Devin Sterling Barney she did not have any
romantic interest in him and to leave her alone, but he continued
to pursue her by repeatedly delivering flowers, confronting her,
and giving her a letter describing his feelings for her. Barney was
charged with criminal stalking, and the district court found him
guilty after a bench trial. Barney asserts the district court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm.

1. A pseudonym.
State v. Barney

BACKGROUND 2

The Stalking

¶2 Samantha is a yoga instructor and massage therapist.
Shortly after she started teaching yoga at a local gym, Barney
began attending her classes. Interactions between the two were
initially friendly and took place “at the gym.” Although Barney
expressed romantic interest in Samantha, Samantha told Barney
she was “not interested” in him. Incorrectly believing she was
playing “hard to get,” Barney continued to flirt with her. He
began leaving flowers at her massage therapy office, doing so at
least three times. Samantha told Barney, “[D]on’t talk to me, don’t
communicate with me, don’t leave me flowers, leave me alone.”

¶3 On one subsequent occasion, Barney went to Samantha’s
massage therapy office and confronted her about the perceived
“mixed signals” he received from her. The situation escalated,
with Barney “aggressively approaching” and yelling at her. She
retreated into her office, locked the door, and called the police. By
the time police responded to the scene, Barney had left.
Eventually, Samantha had Barney removed from her yoga classes.

¶4 Approximately eight months later, Barney approached
Samantha, asking if he could rejoin her yoga classes. He told her
that “he had been working on himself” and “was trying to be
better.” She agreed he could resume attending because self-
improvement was “what all of [her] work [was] about.” However,
once Barney returned, “it was immediately not good.” Shortly
after rejoining the class, Barney accused Samantha of having an
affair with another class attendee (Husband). He told Husband’s
wife (Wife) of his suspicions, and Wife confronted Samantha. A

2. “On appeal from a bench trial, we view and recite the evidence
in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings; we
present additional evidence only as necessary to understand the
issues on appeal.” Bountiful City v. Sisch, 2023 UT App 141, n.1,
540 P.3d 1164 (cleaned up).

20240178-CA 2 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

few days later, Wife reached out to Samantha to apologize for the
misunderstanding and invited Samantha on a trip with her,
Husband, and Barney so they could “heal together.” Wife
indicated that Barney would pay for this trip and it would “make
[his] dreams come true.” This offer made Samantha “[v]ery, very
uncomfortable,” and she feared it could be a set up for “murder
or some kind of sexual encounter.”

¶5 A few days later, Barney dropped off a three-page letter for
Samantha wherein he again expressed his feelings for her. The
letter began, “I know you don’t want to hear from me,” and it then
continued by saying how Barney was trying to be different so she
“could learn to love the real [him].” He again insisted she was
attracted to him and was just “confused” because he was “not like
the other men [she] dated.” Toward the end of the letter, Barney
indicated he would be moving to the Philippines to be with
another woman.

¶6 Samantha called the police about two weeks later, after her
family encouraged her to get a restraining order. An officer
(Officer) responded and observed that Samantha seemed
“worried and concerned.” Officer then spoke to Barney, telling
him how Samantha felt about his continued advances. Barney was
later charged with one count of stalking.

The Trial

¶7 Barney’s case proceeded to a bench trial. The State called
Samantha and Officer as witnesses, and they testified to the events
described above. The State also introduced into evidence pictures
of the various flowers Barney left at Samantha’s office and the
three-page letter.

¶8 Following the presentation of the State’s evidence, Barney
made a motion for a directed verdict (the Motion). Barney
conceded the elements necessary to prove a course of conduct
required for stalking were met. See Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)
(requiring that an actor intentionally or knowingly engaged in a

20240178-CA 3 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

course of conduct directed at a specific individual to be guilty of
stalking). However, Barney claimed there was not sufficient
evidence to prove the second prong of the statute, which required
a showing that he knew or should have known this course of
conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety.
See id. The court denied the Motion.

¶9 Barney then testified in his own defense. Barney’s
testimony largely corroborated the events laid out in Samantha’s
testimony, including that she told him she was not interested in a
romantic relationship. Barney testified she sent him “mixed
signals” and was “playing hard to get,” so he continued flirting
with her. He insisted he could “read people pretty well,” and
Samantha’s body language, “continuous eye contact,” and
“bubbly personality” indicated she was interested in him
romantically. He testified as to his reasoning for continuing to
pursue her after she rejected him: “[M]en get the idea that even
when a woman says no that you have to keep pursuing because
no doesn’t always mean no. No sometimes means yes.”

¶10 At the conclusion of evidence, the district court found
Samantha credible and Barney “not so much.” The district court
then found Barney guilty of stalking, sentenced him to probation,
and entered a continuous protective order.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 Barney alleges the district court erred in denying the
Motion. 3 A motion for directed verdict applies only in cases before
a jury. “[B]ecause this was a bench trial[,] we construe his motion
as a motion to dismiss.” State v. Bingham, 2015 UT App 103, ¶ 24,
348 P.3d 730. A district court’s “grant or denial of a motion to

3. Within his brief, Barney advances a more general sufficiency of
the evidence argument. However, this was not identified as an
issue for review before this court. Therefore, we address only the
issue presented: the denial of the Motion.

20240178-CA 4 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

dismiss is a question of law, and we review the district court’s
ruling for correctness, giving no deference to the decision of the
district court.” Id. ¶ 25 (cleaned up).

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Dismiss

¶12 Barney contends it was error for the court to deny the
Motion because the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove he
knew or should have known that his behavior would cause a
reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or to fear for their
safety. 4 “Evidence is sufficient, and the denial of a motion to
dismiss proper, if the evidence and all inferences that can be
reasonably drawn from it establish that some evidence exists from
which a reasonable [fact finder] could find that the elements of the
crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Spainhower, 1999 UT App 280, ¶ 5, 988 P.2d 452 (cleaned up).

¶13 A person is guilty of criminal stalking when the person
engages in a course of conduct and the person “knows or is
reckless as to whether the course of conduct would cause a
reasonable person to fear for the individual’s own safety . . . or to
suffer other emotional distress.” Utah Code § 76-5-106.5(2)(a).
“Reasonable person” in this section refers to “a reasonable person
in the victim’s circumstances.” Id. § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(v). As
explained below, the State presented some evidence that Barney
knew or should have known that his actions would cause a
reasonable person in Samantha’s position to suffer emotional
distress or fear for their safety.

4. Because Barney conceded at trial that his actions amounted to a
course of conduct, the only issue on appeal is whether he knew or
should have known such actions would cause a reasonable person
in Samantha’s circumstances to suffer emotional distress or fear
for their safety.

20240178-CA 5 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

A. Emotional Distress or Fear for Safety

¶14 The statute defines emotional distress as “significant
mental or psychological suffering, whether or not medical or
other professional treatment or counseling is required.” Utah
Code § 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(ii)(A). Emotional distress is established
through an objective, not subjective, standard. See Baird v. Baird,
2014 UT 08, ¶ 24, 322 P.3d 728 (“Utah’s stalking statute conforms
to the Model Stalking Code’s solely objective standard.” (cleaned
up)). “By including ‘in the victim’s circumstances’ as part of the
‘reasonable person’ definition, the stalking statute provides for an
individualized objective standard.” Id. ¶ 26 (cleaned up). Such a
standard requires us to “consider the entire context surrounding
[the] defendant’s conduct.” Id.

¶15 Barney argues that although his conduct may have been
“inelegant” or even “inappropriate,” he was simply “mistaken
that [Samantha] might still be interested.” Pointing to Baird, he
asserts that none of the factors courts may consider in applying
this objective standard “weigh in favor of a finding that . . .
Barney’s conduct would cause emotional distress to a reasonable
person in [Samantha’s] circumstances.” But the supreme court in
Baird did not create a specific test; it highlighted factors courts had
considered in various cases. See id. ¶ 27 (stating that “Courts
applying this individualized objective standard have considered
such factors as the victim’s background, the victim’s knowledge
of and relationship with the defendant, any history of abuse
between the parties, the location of the alleged stalking and its
proximity to the victim’s children, if any, and the cumulative
effect of [the] defendant’s repetitive conduct.” (footnotes
omitted)). The court also indicated there could be “other relevant
factors” to consider in a given case. Id. And here, not all of the
factors identified in Baird are applicable or particularly
enlightening. For instance, no children are involved and, as
Barney admits, “the information presented at trial regarding
[Samantha’s] background was sparse.” Accordingly, we consider
in our analysis what is relevant here: the location of the alleged
stalking behavior toward Samantha and the cumulative effect of

20240178-CA 6 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

Barney’s actions. In doing so, we are persuaded that some
evidence supported the district court’s finding that Barney was
guilty of stalking beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Location

¶16 The relevant incidents admitted at trial include (1) the
leaving of flowers three times, (2) the confrontation between
Barney and Samantha, and (3) the accusations of the affair/trip
invitation.5 Only one of these incidents (the accusations of the
affair) took place at the gym where Samantha taught yoga. All of
the others took place at Samantha’s massage therapy office.
Nothing in the record indicates Barney was ever a client of
Samantha’s massage therapy practice; their interactions were
“generally at the gym” where Barney attended her yoga classes.
Although not determinative, the fact that multiple incidents
occurred in places other than the location of their typical
interactions goes to the reasonableness of whether a person would
fear for their safety. Barney’s actions were outside the norm both
in action and space for the relationship of a yoga student and
teacher. 6

2. Cumulative Effect

¶17 Importantly, Barney continued his romantic overtures
despite Samantha’s words and actions. Samantha repeatedly
communicated directly to Barney her lack of interest in him and

5. Neither Samantha nor Barney testified as to where he delivered
the letter. Therefore, we do not consider the letter in our analysis
of the location of Barney’s conduct.

6. That Barney delivered flowers to Samantha—a seemingly
innocuous act—does not immunize his conduct from criminal
liability. As our supreme court has pointed out, “[w]hen
considering the context surrounding the respondent’s conduct,
acts that seem perfectly innocent or even well intentioned may
constitute stalking.” Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 08, ¶ 26, 322 P.3d 728.

20240178-CA 7 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

her need for boundaries. We emphasize, however, “it is not a
defense that the alleged stalker was not given actual notice that
the course of conduct was unwanted” because doing so would
place an undue burden on victims to “confront or try to reason
with the stalker, which could be dangerous and may
unnecessarily increase the victim’s risk of harm.” Baird v. Baird,
2014 UT 08, ¶ 31, 322 P.3d 728 (cleaned up). In this case, however,
Samantha repeatedly and explicitly told Barney she was
uncomfortable with his actions. But he nonetheless persisted,
even when told by Samantha, “[D]on’t talk to me, don’t
communicate with me, don’t leave me flowers, leave me alone.”
A reasonable person would be disquieted by someone continuing
a course of action that the person specifically said they were not
comfortable with.

¶18 Furthermore, even after eight months had passed and
Barney reassured Samantha he had changed, Barney continued
his disquieting conduct, including the pursuit of a romantic
relationship. When Barney approached Samantha wishing to
resume attending her yoga classes, he said he “had been working
on himself . . . and was trying to be better.” Samantha felt self-
improvement was “what all of [her] work [was] about,” so she
agreed Barney could resume attending her yoga classes.
However, shortly thereafter, Barney accused Samantha of having
an affair with Husband; told Wife (who told Samantha) that he
would pay for him, Samantha, Husband, and Wife to go on a trip
together; and left Samantha a three-page letter that again declared
his romantic feelings for her. The repeated nature of Barney’s
disquieting actions and unwelcome pursuit of romantic interests
over an extended period of time further supports that a
reasonable person would suffer emotional distress or fear for their
safety.

¶19 In sum, there existed some evidence to support the district
court’s determination that Barney’s course of conduct would
cause a reasonable person in Samantha’s position emotional
distress or to fear for their safety.

20240178-CA 8 2025 UT App 153
State v. Barney

B. The Defendant’s Knowledge

¶20 Barney next contends there was insufficient evidence in the
record to support a finding that he knew or should have known
his actions would cause emotional distress. He claims the district
court’s statement—made after finding him guilty—that Barney’s
ability to read people is “quite poor” is at odds with him having
subjective knowledge of the effect of his actions. But sufficient
evidence showed he did have such knowledge. First, the opening
line in the three-page letter he wrote to Samantha said, “I know
you don’t want to hear from me.” Second, at the very least, the
evidence showed that Barney should have known from
Samantha’s communications to him—”I’m not interested in
[you]” and “[D]on’t talk to me, don’t communicate with me, don’t
leave me flowers, leave me alone”—that his continued unwanted
actions would cause emotional distress or fear for safety. And
even though Samantha did agree to permit Barney to resume
attending her yoga classes—after an eight-month gap and with
Barney’s assurances he had changed—she never told him she had
changed her position that she had no romantic interest in him.
Therefore, he should have known that his continued romantic
advances were not welcome, and he was at least reckless as to
whether such advances would cause fear or emotional distress.

¶21 We thus conclude that some evidence supported the
district court’s ruling on Barney’s knowledge of the impact of his
conduct. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the
Motion.

CONCLUSION

¶22 The State presented some evidence that supported the
district court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Barney
knew or should have known his actions would cause a reasonable
person in Samantha’s circumstances to suffer emotional distress
or to fear for their safety. Therefore, the denial of his motion to
dismiss was not in error, and we affirm Barney’s conviction.

20240178-CA 9 2025 UT App 153