State v. Labbe

Following a pattern of unwanted contact with his estranged wife, the appellant in State v. Labbe was charged with one count of domestic violence stalking, among other charges. Maine’s domestic violence stalking statute provides that a defendant can be convicted of stalking for “intentionally or knowingly” engaging “in a court of conduct directed at or concerning a specific person that would cause a reasonable person” to “suffer serious inconvenience or emotional distress.” The statute provided that a “course of conduct” can consist of speech alone, without any accompanying acts. It does not require any showing that the defendant intended, or even consciously disregarded a risk of, “serious inconvenience or emotional distress.”

Consistent with the stalking statute, the jury in Labbe’s case was authorized to find him guilty based on his speech alone, without regard to whether he engaged in that speech with unlawful intent or even a conscious disregard of his speech’s likely impact. In fact, the state prosecutor highlighted this aspect of Maine law to the jury that convicted Labbe.

In June 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, a First Amendment case holding that a state may not convict someone of stalking carried out via speech alone unless the state establishes some degree of subjective intent. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Maine, filed an amicus brief addressing Counterman’s effect on Maine law and Labbe’s prosecution. This brief argued that the conviction for stalking violated the free speech protections of the Maine and U.S. Constitutions and must be vacated.

After re-argument considering the holding in Counterman, the court reviewed the merits of Labbe’s appeal under the obvious-error standard, and nevertheless affirmed the conviction.