Former Oneida County sergeant appeals stalking conviction

A former sergeant with the Oneida County sheriff’s office is appealing his 2023 conviction for stalking his former spouse.

According to online court records, an attorney for Stetson O. Grant filed a 24-page brief on Dec. 9 arguing that Judge Michael Bloom erred when he denied a defense request to include “clarifying language” in the jury instruction on the stalking charge connected to conduct that took place on April 21 and May 1, 2019.

“The deficient stalking instruction failed to define the term ‘harassing’ and therefore failed to inform the jury that Grant had a defense to stalking if his contact (with the victim) had a ‘legitimate purpose,’”attorney Robert Paul Maxey argued.

Grant, now 38, was convicted of  felony stalking and misdemeanor disorderly conduct following a jury trial in February 2023.

He served a 90-day jail sentence on the disorderly conduct count. A sentence of three years probation was ordered on the  stalking count.

The five-day trial featured numerous recordings of Grant verbally abusing his former spouse and repeatedly refusing her requests to leave her alone.

In the criminal complaint, Grant was accused of calling the woman as many as 50 to 150 times a day and entering her home on multiple occasions after he had been asked to leave.

The complaint also alleged the former sergeant, whose employment with Oneida County ended in August 2021, made statements such as “I am the law” and “OK, I am the (expletive) cops” when the woman would threaten to call law enforcement.

In her sentencing statement, the woman described “walking on eggshells” constantly worrying about angering her partner. Eventually, she said she realized she was in an “emotionally abusive relationship with a narcissist” and knew she had to leave for her sake and that of her child. 

Grant, she said, employed “fear, manipulation, gaslighting, hypercriticism, jealousy, intimidation and control” and told her she should “suck it up” and “be thankful it wasn’t worse” because others were being physically abused.

In his sentencing argument, special prosecutor Karl Kelz of Price County noted that Grant was in uniform with his duty weapon — and being paid by Oneida County taxpayers — on some of the occasions referenced during the trial.

He argued that Grant was so out of control he couldn’t comport himself during working hours. 

“The public expected the defendant to do his job not commit crimes while in uniform and armed,” Kelz said, calling Grant a “textbook domestic abuser” with a “Jekyll and Hyde” personality.

“This is a person used to getting his way,” he added.

In contrast, defense counsel Aaron Nelson noted the jury acquitted Grant on a number of charges and the state dismissed a misconduct in public office charge (related to Grant’s being on duty during the interactions) before the trial started. 

He accused Kelz of “dehumanizing” Grant and noted that the former officer fully understands the wrongfulness of his behavior.

In the appeal brief, attorney Maxey argues the court should have accepted the defense’s proposed jury instruction explaining that alleged harassing behavior can be legitimate or illegitimate.

“Instructing the jury that alleged harassing and/or intimidating behavior can be legitimate or illegitimate would have distinguished between protected and unprotected conduct and cured the improper inference that a jury could convict based solely on the alleged victim’s subjective impressions,” Maxey wrote. “Without this clarification the jury was left with an incomplete instruction on exactly what constituted criminal conduct, and there is no reason to believe that the jury would have considered the legal definitions of harass or intimidate without proper instruction.”

According to the appeal brief, the legitimate purpose of Grant’s contact with the woman on April 21 and May 1, 2019 was to try and convince her, using words, not to break their legal contract of marriage.

The brief includes part of trial counsel Aaron Nelson’s argument for dismissal of the stalking charge related to the events of April 21 and May 1, 2019. 

Nelson moved to dismiss that charge before jury deliberations began.

“Marriage is a legal concept. This is not a girlfriend-boyfriend situation,” he said. “This is a legal contract that two people made, and the evidence that the State has produced, the only evidence they’ve produced is one person who’s involved in that contract has used their words to try to convince the other person to not break that contract. There’s no evidence that [Grant] used threats, that he did anything physical, that he did anything else. He used his words to try to get [the woman] to not break that contract. And I submit to Your Honor as a matter of law that is a legitimate purpose. And if that is a legitimate purpose for one person involved in a contract to use their words to tell the other person, ‘You shouldn’t break that contract,’ then whether they used their words one time, whether they used their words 10 times, whether they used their words 100 times, that doesn’t make those words — that purpose illegitimate.”

The case is before the third district court of appeals in Wausau. 

According to court records, the state is expected to file a response to the appeal brief in January.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].