NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 226.60A
CYBERSTALKING—HARASSMENT. MISDEMEANOR.
The defendant has been charged with cyberstalking.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must
prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant communicated to the victim by way of
[electronic mail]1 [electronic communication].2
Second, that the defendant did so repeatedly, whether or not a
conversation ensued.
Third, that the defendant communicated to the victim for the purpose
of [abusing] [annoying] [threatening] [terrifying] [harassing]
[embarrassing] any person.
And Fourth, that the defendant acted willfully, that is intentionally.3
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date(s), the defendant willfully communicated with the
victim repeatedly by way of [electronic mail] [electronic communication] for
the purpose of [abusing] [annoying] [threatening] [terrifying] [harassing]
[embarrassing] any person, it would be your duty to return a verdict of
guilty. If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of
these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
History
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 226.60A (January 2001). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196.3(b)(2). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
4025f3a50e97f346089347aa58606d3ea892112003fdbbc990bd997b19a52e60
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.