Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
B.K. v. B.W.
Date: 10-08-2025
Case Number: 2024-0698
Judge: Brad Collins
Court: Circuit Court, New Hampshire
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Concord Family Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Concord Family Lawyer Directory
Description:
Concord, New Hampshire, family law lawyer represented the parties in a civil stalking protection case.
A person commits the offense of stalking if, among other things, that person "[p]urposely, knowingly, or recklessly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person's immediate family, and the person is actually placed in such fear." RSA 633:3-a, I(a) (2016). For the purposes of RSA 633:3-a:
A person acts recklessly . . . when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation.
RSA 626:2, II(c) (2016).
"Course of conduct" is defined as "2 or more acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose." RSA 633:3-a, II(a) (2016). A course of conduct may include, among other things, "[f]ollowing, approaching, or confronting that person, or a member of that person's immediate family," "[a]ppearing in close proximity to, or entering the person's residence, place of employment, school, or other place where the person can be found," "[p]lacing an object on the person's property, either directly or through a third person, or that of an immediate family member," or "[a]ny act of communication." RSA 633:3-a, II(a)(2), (3), (5), (7). A course of conduct does not, however, include constitutionally protected activity, nor does it include "conduct that was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose independent of making contact with the targeted person." RSA 633:3-a, II(a). The plaintiff bears the burden to prove "stalking" by a preponderance of the evidence. RSA 633:3-a, III-a.
The plaintiff testified that she lives on a dead-end road and must walk past the defendant's property to walk her children to school or otherwise walk recreationally in the neighborhood. She testified that on two occasions, August 26 and October 29, 2024, the defendant's dogs ran out into the street and charged at her when she walked past his property. In addition to these two encounters, the plaintiff testified that she was "very frustrated because this happens frequently," and that "it's happened about 15 to 20 times" over the past ten years.
A person commits the offense of stalking if, among other things, that person "[p]urposely, knowingly, or recklessly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person's immediate family, and the person is actually placed in such fear." RSA 633:3-a, I(a) (2016). For the purposes of RSA 633:3-a:
A person acts recklessly . . . when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation.
RSA 626:2, II(c) (2016).
"Course of conduct" is defined as "2 or more acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose." RSA 633:3-a, II(a) (2016). A course of conduct may include, among other things, "[f]ollowing, approaching, or confronting that person, or a member of that person's immediate family," "[a]ppearing in close proximity to, or entering the person's residence, place of employment, school, or other place where the person can be found," "[p]lacing an object on the person's property, either directly or through a third person, or that of an immediate family member," or "[a]ny act of communication." RSA 633:3-a, II(a)(2), (3), (5), (7). A course of conduct does not, however, include constitutionally protected activity, nor does it include "conduct that was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose independent of making contact with the targeted person." RSA 633:3-a, II(a). The plaintiff bears the burden to prove "stalking" by a preponderance of the evidence. RSA 633:3-a, III-a.
The plaintiff testified that she lives on a dead-end road and must walk past the defendant's property to walk her children to school or otherwise walk recreationally in the neighborhood. She testified that on two occasions, August 26 and October 29, 2024, the defendant's dogs ran out into the street and charged at her when she walked past his property. In addition to these two encounters, the plaintiff testified that she was "very frustrated because this happens frequently," and that "it's happened about 15 to 20 times" over the past ten years.
Outcome:
Reversed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of B.K. v. B.W.?
The outcome was: Reversed
Which court heard B.K. v. B.W.?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, New Hampshire, NH. The presiding judge was Brad Collins.
Who were the attorneys in B.K. v. B.W.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Concord Family Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Concord Family Lawyer Directory.
When was B.K. v. B.W. decided?
This case was decided on October 8, 2025.