Man charged for harassing, tampering with his parole officer
By Chloe Murdock
BridgeTower Media Newswires
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Supreme Court heard Dec. 8 oral arguments on whether a new state law outlining second-degree harassment is unconstitutionally overbroad in the case of a defendant versus a judicial officer.
Joshua Collins was on supervised probation for a domestic assault conviction in 2019. His probation and parole officer, A.G., regularly monitored his dating life, relationship status, and alcohol use because of the nature of his charges.
Prior to the case’s appearance in the state supreme court, a circuit court jury found Collins guilty on charges of second-degree harassment and tampering with a judicial officer, which began when Collins sent A.G. a friend request and several messages that included Collins expressing that he hired a private investigator to look into her personal life like she does to him as part of her job.
He also accused her adult sons of allegedly selling methamphetamine and her adult daughter of performing sex acts. The next day, he left a voicemail at her workplace stating that one of her sons sold methamphetamine and called her other son a “date raper.”
The state initially charged Collins with first-degree harassment and tampering with a judicial officer. The circuit court overruled Collins’ motion to dismiss charges.
According to Collins’ appellant brief that came before Missouri’s supreme court, Collins appealed the harassment charge and the tampering charge on claims of double jeopardy “because it [is] impossible to commit the crime of tampering with a judicial officer without committing the offense of harassment in the second degree.”
Collins’ attorney, Missouri State Public Defender Christian Lehmberg, said during oral arguments that the harassment statutes specifically have a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment. In the appellant brief, he wrote, “Moreover, defendants should not [have] to wait for a trial court or a reviewing court to strike down a conviction that violates the First Amendment. The threat of prosecution let alone a conviction will have a chilling effect on free speech.”
Assistant Attorney General Garrick F. Aplin represented the state. During oral arguments, he said that while Collin did not issue fighting words, his communication with his parole officer did cause fear, not only because of his explicit words, but because of the violation of privacy, her knowledge of his history of violence, and her testimony that she was scared as a result.
“A reasonable inference from that is that, at least the implicit threat was that, if she didn’t stop supervising him, she was in danger,” Aplin said.
The state relied on State v. Wooden to back up its claim of implicit threat in this case, when questioned by the court on where existing law has stated this.
The case is State v. Collins, SC99211.
