Unlawful posting of a message; MCL 750.411s(1) & (2)(a); Whether the prosecutor proved that defendant “intended to cause conduct that would make the victim feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, harassed, or molested”; MCL 750.411s(1)(b); Stalking; MCL 750.411h(1)(d); Circumstantial evidence & reasonable inferences; People v. Perry; Course of conduct defined; MCL 750.411h(1)(a); Harassment defined; MCL 750.411h(1)(c); Sufficiency of evidence to link defendant to the letters; “Conduct that serves a legitimate purpose” defined; Nastal v. Henderson & Ass’n Investigations, Inc.; Emotional distress defined; MCL 750.411s(g)

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that defendant was the one who contacted Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lending Tree, and the Mayo Clinic as to unconsented contacts with victim-L. Also, given the allegations, the jury could reasonably infer that he intended to harass L by making a false complaint to the Humane Society. Finally, given the circumstances, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that defendant caused L emotional distress. Defendant and L’s daughter went through a contentious divorce. In this case, he was convicted of unlawful posting of a message and stalking. As to his conviction under MCL 750.411s(1), he argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he authored the Mayo Clinic appointment request. This argument overlooked “that the prosecution may prove its case through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence.” The prosecution offered “evidence that mayoclinic.org was accessed from defendant’s work computer and username on at least two separate occasions. Furthermore, the appointment request to the Mayo Clinic contained personal information that only [L] or someone who knew him well would know.” The evidence was “sufficient for the jury to reasonably infer that defendant was the one who accessed the Mayo Clinic website and submitted the request.” He repeated the same argument as to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Lending Tree contacts. L “testified that he did not submit a request for a Bible study to Jehovah’s Witnesses or submit any information to Lending Tree, and these contacts occurred around the same time as the Humane Society and Mayo Clinic contacts.” In addition, L “testified that the reverse mortgage sale representatives had personal information about him that only a family member would know, and someone had obviously given Jehovah’s Witnesses his address and phone number.” Affirmed.