MEEKS v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Opinion

OSCN Found Document:MEEKS v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA

MEEKS v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2026 OK CR 19
Case Number: F-2025-197
Decided: 07/30/2026
Mandate Issued: 07/30/2026
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

---

Cite as: 2026 OK CR 19, __ P.3d __

---

LON BRANDON MEEKS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

¶1 Appellant Lon Brandon Meeks appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Bryan County, Case No. CF-2023-318, for Stalking After Actual Notice of Protective Order, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1173

¶2 Meeks raises eight issues for review, two of which (one directly and one indirectly) challenge the stalking statute as applied in this case based upon the claim Meeks's prosecution violated his First Amendment free speech rights. He asserts that posting a video rant about his ex-wife was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the stalking statute cannot be used to prosecute him for posting it. The State responds that his prosecution is not based upon the content of his message, but rather on the act of posting it on YouTube, and that such conduct integral to criminal activity enjoys no First Amendment protection. This is an interesting constitutional question, but one we need not settle in this case.

¶3 We find that Meeks's claim in his third proposition--that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction--requires discussion and relief. Because reversal is required on that claim, we need not address his other claims including the First Amendment challenge.

FACTS

¶4 This case involves a nearly 40-minute YouTube video posted by Meeks in May 2023 that was forwarded to his ex-wife by her boss. communications via social media platforms even if not sent directly to them. According to his ex-wife, Meeks did not cease his harassment after the protective order was entered, and he texted her family members and made posts on Facebook referencing her and her children, including photographs of them. After she reported his actions to police, Meeks was charged in January 2022 with a misdemeanor for violating a protective order. She testified that Meeks continued his harassment via posts on social media even after his misdemeanor arrest. In his May 2023 video, Meeks referred to her and her children by name multiple times but made no threats. Nevertheless, she testified that Meeks "said horrible things about our children" and that she felt threatened, intimidated, and harassed.

Analysis

¶5 Meeks argues his stalking conviction after actual notice of protective order must be reversed and dismissed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his YouTube video was directed toward his ex-wife.

¶6 The test we apply in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132709 P.2d 202directed toward a person that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim." (emphasis added) Instruction No. 4-31, OUJI-CR(2d) (Supp.2000). For conviction in this case, the State had to show that Meeks harassed his ex-wife with proof showing his conduct, i.e., posting the YouTube video on his personal YouTube channel, was directed towards her.

¶7 We have yet to construe the phrase "directed toward another individual" in Oklahoma's anti-stalking definition of "harasses". We consider the phrase's plain and ordinary meaning with the goal of interpreting the phrase in accord with the Legislature's intent. See O'Connor v. Oklahoma State Conference of NAACP, 2022 OK CR 21516 P.3d 1164about his ex-wife, and we are not indifferent to the embarrassment and harmful emotional toll being the subject of a spiteful rant concerning one's personal life can have, especially in such a public forum as YouTube. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the offending post in this case was directed toward Meeks's ex-wife and this case illustrates that difference.

¶8 "Toward" and "about" are both prepositions. "Toward" generally indicates movement or direction. "Directed toward" is commonly understood to mean intended for or meant for a particular person. The preposition "about", on the other hand, generally means on the subject of or concerning. Illustrative of this point is Spielmann v. Hayes ex rel. Hayes, 2000 OK CIV APP 443 P.3d 71122 O.S.Supp.1998, § 60Spielmann, 2000 OK CIV APP 44Id. 2000 OK CIV APP 44

¶9 Meeks posted the subject video on a personal YouTube channel. There was no evidence he made any attempt to share the video with his ex-wife, i.e., he neither tagged her nor sent it to her. No evidence showed he made her aware of its existence and she acknowledged she had had no direct contact with or had spoken to Meeks for years. According to Meeks's ex-wife, she found out about the video when her boss sent her a link to it, and she made the decision to view its content of her own accord. No evidence suggested Meeks sent the video to her boss or had anything to do with her boss's discovery of the video.

¶10 Meeks's statements in the video also support the finding that the video was not directed toward his ex-wife. Meeks begins the video with a caveat for any police officers watching that he is exercising his constitutional rights. He then explains to any police officers or "jury members" listening that he will be reading a letter he had written to the judge who presided over his protective order hearing. Though the letter was addressed to that judge, he states it is also meant for all the judges in Bryan County "because maybe y'all need to pay attention to what's going on in y'all's county." As Meeks reads the letter, he goes off script into tangents, talking about his ex-wife in unflattering ways. In closing, he reminds his viewers that he is simply exercising his constitutional rights in "reporting my news." He says to them, "Love y'all. Everybody have a good night. I'm sorry I'm missing my daughter. I'm a little drunk tonight." He concludes, noting the people in his life must put up with him talking constantly about his victimization and observing that having one's child removed from their life, in his view, is worse than being raped. He ends, telling his audience again, "Love y'all. Have a good night. Bye."

¶11 Meeks's post on YouTube was his way of airing his grievances with those involved in what he perceives as the unjust taking away of his daughter rather than harassing his ex-wife. As the court and prosecutor below observed, Meeks could have made the same statements about his ex-wife to people he encounters (as he apparently often does) without violating the protective order. The anti-stalking law is designed to shield a person from unwanted conduct directed toward them, meaning intended for their intake, and not to censor someone from randomly talking negatively about a private third party to others. In other words, "directed toward" limits communication to a person, not communication about a person.

¶12 Cyber stalking former intimate partners is a growing societal problem, especially with the number of social media platforms that can be used to contact someone. The evidence presented at trial, however, failed to prove Meeks's video was directed toward his ex-wife. Instead, the evidence showed a purportedly jilted ex-husband engaging in a drunken rant to an internet audience about his failed marriage and custody situation. Admittedly, he crudely explains his ex-wife's relationship history with him and other men to express his feelings of betrayal by her and the legal system. He is emphatic that he will forever call out the injustice inflicted upon him by his ex-wife and the legal system. This scenario in today's world is somewhat akin to the frustrated, drunken bar patron venting to everyone in the vicinity of his voice about the fallout from a bad romance and divorce. Unfortunately, doing so on social media platforms often has a far more widespread audience.

¶13 In sum, the definition of stalking applicable in this case required proof of willful, malicious, and repeated harassment of Meeks's ex-wife. Meeks's conduct did not constitute harassment because it was not directed toward his ex-wife. Accordingly, we find the evidence is insufficient to support his stalking conviction and hereby remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss.

DECISION

¶14 The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED to the district court with instructions to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2026), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRYAN COUNTY,
THE HONORABLE MARK CAMPBELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

 

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL JAMES D. THORNLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 124 NORTH THIRD ST. DURANT, OK 74701 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JOE FREEMAN ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY PUSHMATAHA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 204 S.W. 4TH ST. ANTLERS, OK 74523 COUNSEL FOR STATE RYAN HAYNIE OCPA CENTER FOR LAW & LIBERTY 1401 N. LINCOLN BLVD. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73104 AMICUS CURIAE

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL DANNY JOSEPH OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM APPELLATE DIVISION EAST 111 N. PETERS, SUITE 100 NORMAN, OK 73069 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT GENTNER F. DRUMMOND ATTY. GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA JAY T. SHANK ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21ST STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur
MUSSEMAN, V.P.J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Concur

FOOTNOTES

See, e.g., Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 136-37 (1946); Board of County Comm'rs of Muskogee County v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31136 P.3d 639See also Brown v. Claims Management Resources Inc., 2017 OK 13391 P.3d 111

A. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person in a manner that:

1. Would cause a reasonable person or a member of the immediate family of that person . . . to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; and

2. Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested,

shall, upon conviction, be guilty of the crime of stalking . . . .

B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section when:

1. There is a permanent or temporary restraining order, a protective order, an emergency ex parte protective order, or an injunction in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subsection A of this section against the same party, when the person violating the provisions of subsection A of this section has actual notice of the issuance of such order or injunction . . .

shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed fifteen (15) years, or by a fine not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1173

Section 1173(F)(1) defines "Harasses" as a "pattern or course of conduct directed toward another individual that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim."

See, e.g., Terry v. Drummond, 2026 OK CR 10Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969)).