A defendant or Respondent (civil or anti-stalking protection orders) cannot be found guilty for stalking unless there is proof that he or she possessed a culpable mental state (an intentional, knowing, or “should have known” mental state) during at least two of the occurrences that comprise the course of conduct.  In other words, the Petitioner or Government must prove that the person “should have known” during at least two of the occurrences that comprised the course of conduct that this conduct would produce such mental harm.  As stated in Coleman v. United States 202 A.3d 1127 (D.C. 2019)

For purposes of the Stalking Statute in the District of Columbia “Should have known” as an objective standard.  Objective Standard is essentially how a reasonable person would feel.   The Judge or Jury should view the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable person.   It doesn’t matter what your intention was as long as most people would think that the conduct is stalking.   As opposed to a Subjective Standard which focuses on the state of mind of the person who committed the act; the act may be permissible or impermissible, depending on what the actor was thinking.  In other words a subjective standard looks to the persona as opposed to a reasonable person.  

The Court will look to whether a reasonable person would feel that the course of conduct would cause someone to be alarmed by the conduct.