ÿWPCÍ* … %Vj\ 0 (Æ Fî 4 w@< 4| b B-˜ 0ÂÅ ‡ 0J– U4à 0D UNX 0T¦ 0Dú 0^> U:œ 0hÖ B> C[ AMuÆÂ 0@ˆ 0KÈ D3 AMFÆ“ 0DY D+ 0rÈ 0|: 0†¶ 0< 1uÌ 0dA 0D¥ 0âéU >ËU* U*3B)]DC† AOÉ#3"VÍxFE‹-ªv~×!vÓU# AO()Æw) 0D=* D/* B°*XMemo - Traditional  ' '  0 .   ($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\memo\memo1.wpt ¨7Oe©7ª7{«7¬7{­7®7[¯7D°7Ó€¼7¡xD$Ä3Ø'°°- ù-)Hairline dF>> 4_HeadingsHeadingsÔ€XzXXXÔÔ€ò¤òXXzÔÔ€XzXXXÔÔ€ò¤òXXzÔ3|x¼72 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô0²ž]A ‹Arial Bold(2¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d÷ÿdÿÿÿd !A<< CÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxd$%&Aýÿ<< Cÿÿ„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$••ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'()* ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(sG2EX$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑ,°ÑÑü°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X‘XXXÔà Ø àÔ€ô®ÂôXX‘ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d88887Border 1dd€ 9Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÔ€6ÔÔ€6ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€6XÔÌÌò òFebruary€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€6ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„315€(1994€Supp›.).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„308€(1997€Repl.).Ì ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€this€case€on€November€20,€1997€in€Johnson€City€as€part€ofÏthis€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourtò ò€Aó ódvancingò ò€Ló óegal€ò òEó óducation€for€ò òSó ótudents)€project.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victim€testified€that€the€defendant€never€paid€the€agreed€upon€rental€price.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€victim€testified€that€an€order€of€protection€allowing€ð ðsocial€contactðð€for€had€been€inÏeffect€since€June€of€1993.€€Social€contact€had€been€authorized€to€allow€the€defendant€and€theÏvictim€to€arrange€visitation€for€their€minor€daughter.€€However,€this€order€does€not€appear€in€theÏrecord.Ì #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ2$ÝÑ , ÑÑ ü ÑÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€6Ôà àÔ€6ôÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSubsection€(b)€of€the€statute€was€amended€in€1995€to€delete€the€provision€elevating€theÏoffense€of€stalking€to€a€felony€when€a€court€order€of€protection€is€in€effect.€€The€effective€date€of€theÏamendment€was€July€1,€1995,€and€is€not€applicable€in€this€appeal€since€the€defendant€was€indictedÏin€October€of€1994.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€5ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€6ÔÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€ìXXdìdÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€77XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßR€:;9A1-j|¬Z` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEó óÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€JOHNSON€CITY)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à àœò òFiled:ó ó€ò òFebruary€23,€1998›ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGREGORY€JAY€HOXIE,à àà àà à)à àHon.€Richard€R.€Baumgartner,à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03S01„9706„CR„00061à àÔ€5ÔÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€ÌÌÔ€6ÔÌÓÓòòÌÌFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌÓÓóóMark€Stephensà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌPaula€R.€Vossà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌ(Appeal€Only)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDaryl€J.€BrandÌTimothy€M.€McLaughlinà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌANDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌJohn€HalsteadÌAssistant€Public€Defendersà àà àà àRandall€NicholsÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMarsha€SelecmanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€6¼Ôò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€6XÔÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœDROWOTA,›€J.ÇÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÓÓà àThe€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€returned€an€indictment€charging€theÏdefendant,€Gregory€Jay€Hoxie,€with€one€count€of€felony€stalking,€one€count€ofÏmisdemeanor€stalking,× ƒ< ××  ×€and€two€counts€of€misdemeanor€telephone€harassment.× ƒ= ××  ×€ÏCount€one,€felony€stalking,€alleged€that€the€defendant€had€stalked€the€victim,ÏSuzette€Hoxie,€from€June€through€October,€1994,€in€violation€of€an€order€ofÏprotection.€€Count€two,€misdemeanor€stalking,€alleged€that€the€defendant€hadÏstalked€the€victim€from€January€to€June,€1994.€€Count€three€alleged€that€theÏdefendant€had€harassed€the€victim€by€making€threatening€telephone€calls.€€CountÏfour€charged€that€the€defendant€had€harassed€the€victim€by€placing€telephoneÏcalls€ð ðin€an€offensively€repetitious€manner€and€without€a€legitimate€purpose€ofÏcommunication.ðð€€The€State€introduced€evidence€of€numerous€incidents€inÏsupport€of€its€prosecution€of€felony€and€misdemeanor€stalking.€€At€the€close€of€theÏproof,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€of€guilty€on€count€one,€felony€stalking,€count€two,Ïmisdemeanor€stalking,€and€count€four,€ð ðoffensively€repetitiousðð€telephoneÏharassment.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€count€three,€harassmentÍby€telephone€threat.ÌÌà àIn€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€StateÏshould€have€been€required€to€make€an€election€among€the€numerous€incidentsÏof€stalking€at€the€close€of€its€proof„in„chief.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€trialÏcourtððs€failure€to€require€such€an€election€has€resulted€in€a€violation€of€his€stateÏconstitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏdisagreed€and€held€that€no€election€was€required€because€the€offense€of€stalkingÏis€defined€as€a€continuing€course€of€conduct.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€theÏdefendant€permission€to€appeal€and€now€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.× ƒ> ××  ×ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThe€evidence€presented€at€trial€established€that€the€defendant,€GregoryÏJay€Hoxie,€and€the€victim,€Suzette€Hoxie,€separated€in€1993€after€eight€years€ofÍmarriage.€€The€victim,€along€with€her€twelve„year„old€daughter,€and€the€coupleððsÏsix„year„old€daughter€continued€to€reside€in€the€family€home€on€Langston€DriveÏin€the€Halls€community€of€Knox€County.€€Sometime€near€the€end€of€1993,€theÏvictim€filed€a€divorce€action.€€The€incidents€resulting€in€this€criminal€prosecutionÏbegan€after€the€divorce€action€was€instituted€in€January€of€1994.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€victimððs€testimony€at€trial,€the€defendant€would€come€byÏher€school,€or€her€house,€or€call€her€every€day€in€January€and€February€of€1994.ÏThe€victim€was€a€student€at€the€Tennessee€Technology€Center€in€Knoxville€withÏthe€goal€of€becoming€a€licensed€practical€nurse.€€Some€days,€the€defendantÏwould€telephone€the€victim€as€many€as€forty€times.€€One€particular€day€in€June€ofÏ1994,€she€received€over€eighty€telephone€calls€from€the€defendant.€€During€thisÏperiod€of€time,€the€victim€changed€her€telephone€number€six€times.ÌÌà àOn€some€occasions,€the€defendant€would€physically€assault€the€victim.€ÏFor€example,€in€March€the€victim€agreed€to€rent× ƒ? ××  ×€a€portion€of€her€five€car€garageÍto€the€defendant€so€long€as€he€limited€his€hours€there€to€between€7:30€a.m.€andÏ3:30€p.m.€when€she€was€away€from€home€at€school.€€On€March€16th,€the€victimÏarrived€home€early€from€school€and€asked€the€defendant€to€leave.€€He€refusedÏand€insisted€upon€working€on€her€car.€€When€she€protested,€he€grabbed€herÏpurse,€pulled€her€hair,€strangled€her,€picked€her€up€and€threw€her€to€the€ground.€ÏThe€victim€left,€but€returned€at€3:30€p.m.€€The€defendant€was€still€there€andÏthreatened€the€victim.€€The€victim€called€the€police€and€had€him€arrested.ÌÌà àAnother€such€incident€occurred€on€April€20th,€when€the€victim€arrivedÏhome€early€from€school€and€asked€the€defendant€to€leave€her€garage.€€When€sheÏwas€proceeding€down€the€driveway,€the€defendant€jumped€on€the€hood€of€herÏcar,€leaned€into€her€window,€and€screamed€that€ð ð[she€was]€not€going€to€get€oneÏred€cent;€that€he€was€going€to€kill€[her],€because€it€would€be€a€hell€of€a€lot€cheaperÏthan€what€[she]€was€putting€him€through.ððÌÌà àOn€April€8th,€22nd,€and€25th,€the€defendant€appeared€at€the€victimððsÏschool.€€He€questioned€her€about€her€activities€and€her€companions.€€The€victimÍdescribed€the€defendant€as€ð ðpossessed.ðð€€When€he€continued€to€come€by€theÏschool,€the€victim€called€the€police€to€the€school€and€filed€a€police€report€on€AprilÏ25th.ÌÌà àOn€May€21st,€approximately€one€week€after€their€divorce€had€becomeÏfinal,€the€defendant€again€appeared€at€the€victimððs€garage€even€though€he€hadÏbeen€ordered€by€the€divorce€court€to€remove€his€belongings€from€her€residenceÏand€leave.€€The€defendant€was€attempting€to€give€the€coupleððs€six„year„oldÏdaughter€an€opossum€as€a€gift.€€When€the€victim€refused€to€accept€the€animal€andÏstarted€to€leave€in€her€car,€the€defendant€threw€the€metal€cage€for€the€animal€atÏthe€victimððs€car.ÌÌà àOn€the€night€of€May€22nd,€the€defendant€appeared€nude€in€the€victimððsÏdriveway€around€9:00€p.m.€€The€victim€was€very€upset€by€the€incident,€partlyÏbecause€both€her€daughters€had€seen€the€defendant.€€She€called€the€police,€whoÏarrived€and€escorted€the€defendant€from€the€property.ÌÌà àOn€May€29th,€the€victim€and€her€daughters€accompanied€some€friends€toÏthe€lake.€€When€they€returned,€the€defendant€was€waiting€at€the€victimððs€houseÏand€questioned€her€about€her€activities€that€day.€€When€the€victim€refused€toÏanswer€his€questions,€the€defendant€threw€a€wet€towel€in€her€face€and€usedÏprofanity€towards€the€victim€and€her€daughters.€The€victim€and€the€children€ranÏinside€the€house€and€locked€the€doors.€€The€defendant€beat€on€the€metal€doorsÏuntil€they€were€dented,€and€he€threatened€to€kill€the€victim€and€the€girls.€€WhenÏthe€victim€attempted€to€call€the€police,€the€telephone€was€not€working.€ÏEventually,€the€victimððs€twelve„year„old€daughter€sneaked€out€the€back€of€theÏhouse€and€ran€to€a€neighborððs€house€and€called€911.€€When€the€police€arrived,Ïthey€discovered€that€the€victimððs€phone€box€had€been€removed€and€wiresÏdisconnected.€€After€this€incident,€the€victim€and€her€daughters€stayed€at€aÏneighborððs€house,€behind€locked€doors€for€a€week.ÌÌà àOn€May€23rd,€the€victim€petitioned€the€Circuit€Court€for€a€ð ðno€contactðð× ƒ@ ××  ×Íorder€of€protection,€and€on€June€2nd,€the€court€granted€the€request€and€enteredÏthe€order€of€protection.€€On€June€4th,€the€victim€and€her€daughters€again€went€toÏthe€lake€with€the€Fair€family.€€On€their€return€trip,€the€defendant€drove€alongsideÏtheir€car€yelling€and€screaming€at€the€victim.€€Sharron€Fair€described€the€victim€asÏvery€frightened,€and€said€that€she€had€never€been€so€afraid€for€anyone€in€her€life.ÌÌà àOn€June€6th,€the€defendant€called€the€victimððs€house€and€warned€theÏvictimððs€male€friend€to€stay€away€from€her.€€The€two€men€argued,€and€when€theÏvictimððs€friend€left€about€an€hour€later,€the€tires€on€his€car€had€been€slashed.€€OnÏJune€10th,€the€defendant€went€to€the€Y.M.C.A.€where€the€victimððs€daughtersÏattended€day€care€and€asked€the€twelve„year„old€daughter€for€a€key€to€theÏvictimððs€house.€€The€defendant€did€not€leave€until€forced€to€do€so€by€the€staff€atÏthe€Y.M.C.A.€€Later€that€day,€the€defendant€came€to€the€community€pool€whereÏthe€victim€and€her€children€were€swimming.€€The€victim€left€to€avoid€aÏconfrontation.€€Since€the€defendant€no€longer€resided€in€the€subdivision,€he€hadÏno€right€to€use€the€private€pool€which€was€open€only€to€residents€of€theÍneighborhood.ÌÌà àThe€next€day,€June€11th,€the€defendant€telephoned€the€victim€and€told€herÏhe€had€been€at€her€school€the€day€before€and€had€sat€in€a€classroom€next€toÏhers,€watching€her.€€He€then€described€the€substance€of€the€two„hour€lecture€sheÏhad€attended.ÌÌà àOn€June€12th,€the€defendant€came€three€times€to€the€neighborhood€poolÏwhere€the€victim€and€her€children€were€swimming.€€On€the€third€occasion,€theÏvictim€told€the€defendant€she€would€call€the€police€if€he€did€not€leave€them€alone.€ÏThe€defendant€slammed€his€body€into€hers€with€great€force€and€said€that€heÏwould€have€her€killed€if€she€had€him€removed€from€the€pool.€€That€night,€afterÏmidnight,€the€victim€awoke€and€saw€the€defendant€looking€through€the€windowsÏinto€her€home.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€returned€to€the€day€care€center€and€again€attempted€toÏspeak€to€the€victimððs€daughters€on€June€13th.€€That€evening,€the€defendantÍappeared€at€a€childrenððs€function€to€which€the€victim€had€taken€her€daughters.€ÏThe€victim€showed€the€protective€order€to€the€doorman,€and€he€barred€theÏdefendant€from€entering.€€However,€the€defendant€returned€later€and€sentÏsomeone€inside€to€find€the€victim.€€The€victim€called€911,€but€the€defendant€leftÏbefore€the€police€arrived.ÌÌà àOn€June€24th,€the€defendant€followed€the€victim€to€a€restaurant€where€theÏvictim€had€gone€for€the€evening.€€She€called€911€more€than€once€that€eveningÏbut€it€did€not€deter€him.€€Later€that€night,€the€defendant€telephoned€the€victim€andÏtold€her€he€was€not€going€to€return€their€daughter€from€weekend€visitation.ÌÌà àOn€July€8th€and€13th,€the€defendant€went€to€the€offices€of€the€PrivateÏIndustry€Council,€an€agency€which€had€provided€some€of€the€funding€for€theÏvictimððs€educational€training.€€He€spoke€with€staff€members€there€about€theÏeligibility€requirements€for€the€program,€and€tried€to€convince€the€intakeÏcoordinator€for€the€agency€that€the€victim€had€obtained€funding€illegally€andÏthrough€false€pretenses.€€He€told€a€case€manager€that€the€victim€had€ð ðput€himÍthrough€three€weeks€of€hellðð€and€that€ð ðit€was€time€for€payback.ðð€€He€threatened€toÏð ðget€[the€agency]€torn€downðð€if€they€did€nothing€about€the€victimððs€fraud.€€Staff€atÏthe€agency€described€the€defendant€as€loud,€belligerent,€and€intimidating.€€€TheÏintake€coordinator€reviewed€the€victimððs€records€and€determined€that,€contrary€toÏthe€defendantððs€assertions,€she€had€been€eligible€for€the€program.ÌÌà àIn€July,€the€tires€on€the€victimððs€car€were€deflated€on€eight€differentÏoccasions,€but€a€perpetrator€was€not€identified.€€Throughout€the€summer€months,Ïthe€defendant€left€many€cards€and€notes€for€the€victim€on€her€car,€at€the€door€ofÏher€home,€or€at€the€hospital€where€she€was€performing€a€clinical€class€as€part€ofÏher€school€work.€€Generally,€the€cards€expressed€the€defendantððs€love€for€theÏvictim€or€said€how€much€he€wanted€her€to€come€back€to€him.€€The€victim€wasÏupset€by€the€cards€and€said€she€had€never€received€a€single€card€from€theÏdefendant€during€their€eight€years€of€marriage.€€In€late€July,€1994,€the€victimÏrequested€that€the€security€personnel€at€the€hospital€pay€special€attention€to€herÏcar.€€Thereafter,€on€July€27th€and€28th,€security€personnel€observed€theÏdefendant€leave€a€note€on€the€victimððs€car€and€pull€into€a€parking€spot€next€to€theÍvictimððs€car.ÌÌà àA€classmate€of€the€victimððs€also€saw€the€defendant€at€the€school€and€at€theÏhospital€on€numerous€occasions.€€She€said€the€defendant€would€often€arrive€atÏlunch€and€follow€the€victim€throughout€the€lunch€break.€€€This€classmate€had€seenÏthe€defendant€standing€by€the€victimððs€car€in€the€parking€lot€and€also€hadÏobserved€him€watching€the€victim€from€a€classroom€doorway€at€the€school.ÌÌà àIn€September,€the€victim€borrowed€her€neighborððs€car€to€go€on€a€date.€€TheÏdefendant€discovered€where€the€victim€had€gone,€followed€her€to€the€restaurantÏand€came€inside.€€The€victim€quickly€exited€the€restaurant€through€the€kitchen.€ÏThe€defendant€followed€the€victim€all€the€way€back€to€her€house.ÌÌà àIn€October,€the€victim€began€working€part„time€as€a€bartender€at€theÏCherokee€Country€Club.€€The€defendant€approached€the€assistant€manager€atÏthe€country€club€and€demanded€to€know€the€victimððs€schedule.€ÌÌà àFinally,€on€October€23rd€an€argument€ensued€when€the€defendant€wouldÏnot€remove€his€truck€from€the€victimððs€home.€€The€defendant€grabbed€the€victimÏby€the€throat€and€threw€her€against€a€wood€pile.€€The€victimððs€nose€was€bloodied,Ïa€large€amount€of€her€hair€was€pulled€out,€and€she€lost€some€earrings.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€testimony€of€a€number€of€her€friends,€classmates,€andÏacquaintances,€the€victim€lived€in€constant€fear€of€the€defendantððs€threats€andÏactions.€€She€often€missed€school€because€of€fear€for€herself€and€her€classmates.€ÏAt€one€point,€the€victim€considered€withdrawing€from€school,€but€was€dissuadedÏby€one€of€her€instructors.€€Her€neighbor,€Sharon€Fair,€sheltered€the€victim€and€herÏdaughters€on€more€than€one€occasion.€€Fair€said€the€defendant€repeatedly€andÏconstantly€telephoned€her€home€when€the€victim€was€there€and€that€the€onlyÏrelief€from€the€phone€calls€was€to€put€the€phone€off€the€receiver.€€Fair€said€theÏvictim€feared€for€her€life€and€had€asked€Fair€to€raise€her€daughters€if€theÏdefendant€killed€her.ÌÌà àBased€upon€this€proof,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€felonyÍstalking,€in€violation€of€an€order€of€protection,€from€June€through€October,€1994,Ïmisdemeanor€stalking,€from€January€to€June,€1994,€and€misdemeanor€telephoneÏharassment€for€placing€telephone€calls€ð ðin€an€offensively€repetitious€manner€andÏwithout€a€legitimate€purpose€of€communication.ðð€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,Ïin€an€opinion€authored€by€Judge€John€H.€Peay,€and€concurred€in€by€Judge€DavidÏG.€Hayes€and€Judge€William€M.€Barker,€upheld€the€juryððs€verdict.€€For€the€reasonsÏthat€follow,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òELECTION€REQUIREMENTóóó ó€Ìà àAs€related€above,€the€State€introduced€evidence€of€numerous€incidents€inÏsupport€of€its€prosecution€of€one€count€of€felony€stalking€and€one€count€ofÏmisdemeanor€stalking.€€Relying€upon€òòBurlison€v.€Stateóó,€501€S.W.2d€801€(Tenn.Ï1973),€and€its€progeny,€€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€State€should€have€beenÏrequired€to€elect€those€particular€incidents€for€which€it€was€seeking€convictions.€ÏIn€contrast,€the€State€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€foundÏthat€no€election€was€required€because€to€establish€the€offense€of€stalking€theÍState€must€prove€a€continuous€course€of€conduct.ÌÌà àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€with€òòBurlisonóó,€in€which€the€defendantÏhad€been€charged€with€one€count€of€carnal€knowledge€of€a€female€under€the€ageÏof€twelve€years.€€òòIdóó.,€501€S.W.2d€at€802.€€The€State€introduced€proof€of€numerousÏincidents€of€sexual€fondling€and€intercourse€during€the€relevant€time€periodÏcharged€in€the€indictment.€€This€Court€held€that€under€such€circumstances,€it€isÏð ðthe€duty€of€the€trial€judge€to€require€the€State,€at€the€close€of€its€proof„in„chief,€toÏelect€the€particular€offense€of€carnal€knowledge€upon€which€it€would€rely€forÏconviction,€and€to€properly€instruct€the€jury€so€that€the€verdict€of€every€juror€wouldÏbe€united€on€the€one€offense.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€501€S.W.2d€at€804.€€Three€reasons€forÏrequiring€election€were€enumerated€by€the€òòBurlisonóó€decision:€(1)€to€enable€theÏdefendant€to€prepare€for€and€defend€against€the€specific€charge(s);€(2)€to€protectÏthe€defendant€from€double„jeopardy€by€individualization€of€the€issue;€and€(3)€toÏensure€unanimity€of€verdict€so€that€the€juryððs€verdict€may€not€be€a€matter€of€choiceÏbetween€offenses„„some€jurors€convicting€of€one€offense€and€others€of€anotherÏoffense.€€òòIdóó.,€501€S.W.2d€at€803.ÌÌà àMore€recently,€we€discussed€the€election€requirement€in€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,Ï851€S.W.2d€134€(Tenn.€1993).€€There,€the€defendant€had€been€charged€with€theÏunlawful€sexual€penetration€of€one€female€and€unlawful€sexual€contact€with€twoÏother€females.€€The€State€narrowed€the€time€frame€within€which€the€offensesÏoccurred€prior€to€trial€to€between€April€7€and€September€6,€1989.€€However,Ïtestimony€at€trial€indicated€that€numerous€incidents€of€the€unlawful€conductÏoccurred€during€the€time€period€specified€by€the€indictment.€€Although,€the€StateÏwas€not€required€to€elect€the€offenses€for€which€it€sought€convictions€at€the€closeÏof€its€proof„in„chief,€the€trial€court€gave€the€jury€a€general€instruction€regardingÏunanimity.€€This€Court€held€the€instruction€to€be€an€inadequate€substitution€forÏð ðBurlisonððs€explicit€requirement€that€the€prosecution€identify€the€specific€offensesÏfor€which€it€seeks€convictions.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€851€S.W.2d€at€136.€€Emphasizing€that€ð ðeachÏunlawful€act€of€carnal€knowledge€is€a€separate,€substantive€offense,€òòrather€than€aÏcontinuous€offenseóó,ðð€the€òòSheltonóó€court€held€that€ð ðto€avoid€the€prosecution€ofÏuncharged€crimes€in€cases€involving€age€of€consent€laws€and€other€sexualÏcrimes,€the€State€is€required€to€elect€the€specific€offense€upon€which€a€verdict€ofÍguilty€would€be€demanded.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€851€S.W.2d€at€137€(internal€quotations€omittedÏand€emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJamison€v.€Stateóó,€117€Tenn.€58,€94€S.W.€675Ï(1906).€€€ÌÌà àWhile€acknowledging€the€three€justifications€cited€by€òòBurlisonóó€for€theÏelection€requirement,€this€Court€stated€that€the€third€rationale€ð ðaddresses€theÏmost€serious€concern:€the€well„established€right€under€our€state€constitution€to€aÏunanimous€jury€verdict€before€a€criminal€conviction€is€imposed.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€851ÏS.W.2d€at€137;€òòseeóó€òòalso€Tidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€501€(Tenn.€1996)Ï(Expressing€continued€adherence€to€the€òòSheltonóó€rationale,€particularly€theÏrecognition€that€ensuring€unanimity€is€the€most€significant€of€the€justifications€forÏthe€election€requirement).ÌÌà àThis€precedent€clearly€establishes€that€the€State€must€make€an€election€ofÏoffenses€when€it€is€pursuing€convictions€for€discrete€crimes€and€proof€ofÏadditional€discrete€crimes€has€been€introduced€at€trial.€€However,€as€wasÏimplicitly€recognized€in€òòSheltonóó,€the€election€requirement€is€not€applicable€whenÍthe€crime€charged€requires€the€State€to€prove€a€continuous€course€of€unlawfulÏconduct.€€Indeed,€in€articulating€the€rule€in€òòSheltonóó,€this€Court€was€careful€to€pointÏout€that€ð ðeach€unlawful€act€of€carnal€knowledge€is€a€separate,€substantiveÏoffense,€òòrather€than€a€continuous€offenseóó.ðð€€òòSheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€at€137Ï(emphasis€added).€€Therefore,€in€resolving€this€appeal,€we€must€examine€theÏstatutory€elements€of€the€crimes€of€stalking€and€harassment.€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€and€convicted€of€felony€andÏmisdemeanor€stalking€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„315€(1994ÏSupp.),× ƒA ××  ×€which€in€pertinent€part€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(a)(1)€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€stalking:ÌÌà8 à(A)€Who€repeatedly€follows€or€harasses€another€person€with€theÏintent€to€place€that€person€in€reasonable€fear€of€a€sexual€offense,Ïbodily€injury€or€death;ÌÌà8 à(B)€Whose€actions€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€sufferÏsubstantial€emotional€distress;€andÌÌà8 à(C)€Whose€acts€induce€emotional€distress€to€that€person.€ÌÌà8 à(2)€As€used€in€this€subsection:ÌÌà8 à(A)€ð ðFollowsðð€means€maintaining€a€visual€or€physical€proximity€overÏa€period€of€time€to€a€specific€person€in€such€a€manner€as€wouldÏcause€a€reasonable€person€to€have€a€fear€of€a€sexual€offense,Ïbodily€injury€or€death;ÌÌà8 à(B)€ð ðHarassesðð€means€a€course€of€conduct€directed€at€a€specificÏperson€which€would€cause€a€reasonable€person€to€fear€a€sexualÏoffense,€bodily€injury,€or€death,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€verbalÏthreats,€written€threats,€vandalism,€or€unconsented„to€physicalÏcontact;€andÌÌà8 à(C)€ð ðRepeatedlyðð€means€on€two€(2)€or€more€separate€occasions.ÌÌà8 à(b)(1)€Stalking€is€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.Ìà@ à€Ô€6„Ô.€.€.€Ô€6XÔÌà8 à(3)€Any€person€who€violates€subsection€(a)€after€having€beenÏenjoined€or€restrained€by€order,€diversion,€or€probation€agreementÏof€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€effect€prohibiting€the€behaviorÏdescribed€in€subsection€(a)€against€the€same€party€commits€a€ClassÏE€felony.€.€.€.€ÌÓÓÌà àReviewing€the€statutory€definition€it€is€clear€that€the€crime€of€stalking€is€notÏcommitted€upon€a€single,€discrete€act€by€the€defendant,€unlike€the€sex€offensesÍinvolved€in€òòBurlisonóó€and€its€progeny.€€Instead,€the€statute€which€defines€stalkingÏas€a€criminal€offense€contemplates€a€series€of€discrete€actions€amounting€to€aÏcontinuing€course€of€conduct.€€To€obtain€a€conviction€for€stalking,€the€State€mustÏprove€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€engaged€in€the€prohibitedÏconduct€ð ðrepeatedly,ðð€which€is€defined€by€the€statute€as€ð ðtwo€(2)€òòor€more€separateÏoccasionsóó.ðð€€Likewise,€the€statute€defines€ð ðfollowsðð€as€ð ðmaintaining€a€visual€orÏphysical€proximity€òòover€a€period€of€timeóó€to€a€specific€person.ðð€€Finally,€ð ðharassesððÏis€defined€as€òòa€course€of€conductóó€directed€at€a€specific€person.ðð€By€definition,Ïtherefore,€the€offense€of€stalking,€requires€proof€of€a€continuous€course€ofÏconduct.ÌÌà àLikewise,€the€offense€of€telephone€harassment€for€which€the€defendantÏwas€convicted€contemplates€a€continuing€course€of€conduct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„17„308€(1997€Repl.)€provides:ÌÓÓÌà à(a)€A€person€commits€an€offense€who€intentionally:ÌÔ€6„Ôà@ à.€.€.Ô€6XÔÌÌà8 à(2)€Places€one€òò(1)€or€moreóó€telephone€calls€anonymously,€or€at€anÍinconvenient€hour,€or€in€an€offensively€òòrepetitious€manneróó,€orÏwithout€a€legitimate€purpose€of€communication€and€by€this€actionÏknowingly€annoys€or€alarms€the€recipient.€ÌÓÓÌThe€offense€of€harassment€itself€requires€more€than€one€telephone€call€orÏtelephone€calls€in€a€repetitious€manner.€€Again,€like€the€offense€of€stalking,€aÏcontinuous€course€of€conduct€is€required€and€each€telephone€call€does€not€itselfÏconstitute€the€offense€charged.€€Therefore,€in€this€case,€allowing€proof€ofÏnumerous€incidents€of€telephone€harassment€and€stalking€did€not€compromiseÏthe€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€because,€only€twoÏstalking€offenses€and€one€offense€of€telephone€harassment€have€been€chargedÏand€proven.€€That€the€offenses€involve€numerous€discrete€parts€does€not€put€theÏdefendant€at€risk€of€a€non„unanimous€jury€verdict.€€While€we€agree€with€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€unlawful€actions€which€constitute€the€offense€ofÏstalking€may€in€some€instances€be€separate€distinct€crimes,€we€conclude€thatÏwhen€the€only€offense€charged€requires€proof€of€a€continuous€course€of€conduct,Ïthe€election€requirement€does€not€apply.ÌÌà àUnder€such€circumstances,€the€other€two€concerns€enunciated€by€theÏòòBurlisonóó€court€in€support€of€the€election€requirement€may€be€satisfied,€as€in€thisÏcase,€by€the€form€of€the€indictment€and€the€nature€of€the€proof.€€The€charge€ofÏmisdemeanor€stalking€encompassed€the€time€period€before€a€protective€orderÏwas€issued,€January€through€June€of€1994.€€The€charge€of€felony€stalkingÏencompassed€the€time€period€following€issuance€of€the€protective€order,€JuneÏthrough€October€of€1994.€€The€charge€of€harassment€included€the€telephone€callsÏfrom€January€through€June€1994.€These€specific€date€limitations€not€onlyÏprovided€the€defendant€with€notice€of€the€general€nature€of€the€conduct€withÏwhich€he€was€charged,€but€also€afforded€him€double€jeopardy€protection€fromÏfuture€prosecution€for€stalking€and€harassment€during€this€same€time€period.€ÏConsequently,€no€election€was€required€since€there€was€no€danger€of€aÏnonunanimous€verdict€and€the€defendant€was€provided€with€notice€and€doubleÏjeopardy€protection.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àHaving€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€failing€to€require€theÍState€to€make€an€election,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€upholding€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:Ìó óÌAnderson,€C.J.,ÌReid,€Birch,€Holder,€JJ.Ì