Appeals court upholds stalking conviction of former Oneida County sheriff’s sergeant

A state appeals court last week upheld the stalking conviction of a former Oneida County Sheriff’s Office sergeant, rejecting his argument that jurors should have been told his conduct toward his then-wife could be excused because he was trying to save their marriage.

In a decision dated Nov. 3, the District III Court of Appeals in Wausau affirmed the judgment against Stetson O’Keefe Grant, who was convicted by an Oneida County jury of stalking and disorderly conduct, both as acts of domestic abuse.

“Under this scheme, a defendant’s conduct is simply deemed to have ‘gone too far,’ regardless of the defendant’s purpose — in this case, including something such as ‘hoping to save a marriage,’” Judge Thomas Hruz wrote for the three-judge panel. Presiding Judge Lisa Stark and Judge Gregory Gill joined the opinion. The panel recommended the decision for publication, which would make it binding precedent statewide.

Grant appealed only the stalking conviction, a Class I felony. Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom sentenced him in 2023 to 90 days in jail and three years of probation.

The argument

On appeal, Grant contended Bloom erred when he refused a defense request to modify the standard jury instruction on stalking.

Under state law, stalking requires that a defendant’s conduct cause the victim “serious emotional distress,” defined as feeling “terrified, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or tormented.” The statute does not separately define “harassed.”

Grant’s attorneys asked Bloom to borrow a definition from Wisconsin’s civil harassment restraining order law, which describes harassment in part as conduct that harasses or intimidates another person and “serve[s] no legitimate purpose.” Grant argued his conduct, though admittedly harassing in everyday terms, had the legitimate purpose of persuading his wife to reconcile — and that without that instruction, jurors had no option to acquit him on that basis.

Bloom rejected the request at trial, ruling the term was used in its ordinary sense and that defense counsel remained free to argue Grant’s conduct was not harassing.

The appeals court agreed. The panel found the standard instruction “accurately and completely states the law,” and that the definition Grant sought “is confusing and misstates the law.”

The court noted the civil harassment statute offers a second, separate definition of harassment that includes conduct amounting to stalking. That structure, the panel wrote, shows lawmakers “determined that stalking is itself harassment, and, if proven, stalking can never be committed for a ‘legitimate purpose.’”

The panel also pointed out that Grant’s attorney made the reconciliation argument to the jury through cross-examination and closing, telling jurors that “simply asking [someone] to change their mind by using your words for a legitimate purpose does not make you a criminal.” Jurors were free to reject that view, the court wrote, and did.

The case

According to the decision, the charges stemmed from Grant’s conduct after his wife told him around Christmas 2018 that she wanted a divorce. The criminal complaint alleged he called her 50 to 150 times a day, texted frequently and showed up daily at her residence on the couple’s property, which included a main house, a guest house and an on-site business. Grant had moved into the guest house.

The woman testified that Grant would come to the house crying and refuse to leave until she reconsidered, then threaten to kill himself or turn their toddler son against her when that failed. The complaint referenced recordings in which he threatened to kill himself and/or the entire family. She testified she often locked herself in a bathroom until he left. The complaint also alleged he punched holes in the walls and stood in the doorway to keep her from leaving.

On numerous occasions, she testified, Grant came to the house while on duty as a sergeant, in uniform and wearing his sidearm. When she threatened to call police, he laughed and said things to the effect of “I am the law,” telling her the police were his friends. She testified she did not initially report him because she feared the call would go to him, his team or his friends.

She secretly recorded 53 interactions with Grant; 50 were played for the jury. Grant did not testify.

The jury convicted Grant of stalking specifically for his conduct between April 21 and May 1, 2019, according to the decision. Two of the recordings, from those dates — one about 30 minutes long and the other more than 50 minutes — captured encounters that occurred while Grant was on duty.

Grant may petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the decision.