The state accuses the defendant of having committed the offense of stalking.

Relevant Statutes

A person commits the offense of stalking if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct that—

1. the person knows or reasonably should know the other person will regard as threatening—
   1. bodily injury or death for the other person;
   2. bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household or for an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship; or
   3. that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property; and
2. causes the other person, a member of the other person’s family or household, or an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death, or in fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property, or to feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended; and
3. would cause a reasonable person to—
   1. fear bodily injury or death for himself;
   2. fear bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household or for an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship;
   3. fear that an offense will be committed against the person’s property; or
   4. feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended.

Definitions

Knowingly Engaged in Conduct

A person knowingly engaged in conduct when he was aware that his conduct was conduct of the kind required by the definition of the offense.

Knew Another Person Would Regard Conduct as Threatening

A person knew another person would regard the conduct of [insert specific allegations, e.g., tracking another’s vehicle with a tracking device] as threatening [insert specific allegations, e.g., the infliction of bodily injury or death upon that person] when he was aware that another person was reasonably certain to regard [insert specific allegations, e.g., tracking the person’s vehicle with a tracking device] as threatening [insert specific allegations, e.g., the infliction of bodily injury or death upon the person].

Reasonably Should Know Another Person Would Regard Conduct as Threatening

A person reasonably should know another person would regard the conduct of [insert specific allegations, e.g., tracking the other person’s vehicle with a tracking device] as threatening [insert specific allegations, e.g., the infliction of bodily injury or death upon that person] when a person, exercising the care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the defendant’s standpoint, would be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person would regard [insert specific allegations, e.g., tracking that person’s vehicle with a tracking device] as threatening [insert specific allegations, e.g., the infliction of bodily injury or death upon the person]. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the defendant’s standpoint.

Application of Law to Facts

You must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, four elements. The elements are that—

1. the defendant, in [county] County, Texas, on or about [date] and through [date], on more than one occasion knowingly engaged in conduct, specifically [insert specific allegations, e.g.,
   1. the defendant tracked [name]’s vehicle with one or more tracking devices;
   2. the defendant sent [name] messages to [name]’s phone; and
   3. the defendant damaged [name]’s tires];
2. the conduct was pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
3. the scheme or course of conduct was directed specifically at [name], another person; and
4. the conduct on each occasion—
   1. was conduct the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that [name] would regard as threatening [bodily injury or death upon [name]/bodily injury or death upon a member of [name]’s family or household or for an individual with whom [name] had a dating relationship/that an offense would be committed against [name]’s property];
   2. was conduct that did cause [name] to be in fear of [bodily injury or death upon [name]/bodily injury or death upon a member of [name]’s family or household or for an individual with whom [name] had a dating relationship/that an offense would be committed against [name]’s property]; and
   3. was conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear [bodily injury or death upon [name]/bodily injury or death upon a member of [name]’s family or household or for an individual with whom [name] had a dating relationship/that an offense would be committed against [name]’s property].

You must all agree on elements 1 through 4 listed above.

You need not all agree on whether the state has proved [insert item numbers specifically alleged in element 1 above, e.g., 1.a, 1.b, or 1.c], but you must all agree that the state has proved the defendant engaged in conduct meeting the descriptions on more than one occasion during the specified period.

If you all agree the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of elements 1 through 4 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”

If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the four elements listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”

[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]