Stalking, Repeated Conduct, and Credible Threats
Stalking allegations require careful review of a course of conduct and a credible threat. Unwanted contact alone does not answer every statutory question.
RV Litigation Group PC is based in San Francisco and represents clients throughout California. The review begins with the actual papers, the procedural stage, and the evidence relevant to the issue.
The Legal Questions
Penal Code section 646.9 includes willful and malicious repeated following or harassment, together with a credible threat made with the required intent to place the person in reasonable fear for personal or immediate-family safety.
A threat can be expressed through words, electronic communications, conduct, or a combination. The prosecution need not prove an actual plan to carry it out. Constitutionally protected activity and conduct with a legitimate purpose require distinction from the charged harassment.
Examine the Alleged Pattern and Credible Threat
Repeated contact must be evaluated under the statute
Stalking may involve willful, malicious repeated following or qualifying harassment, together with a credible threat and the required intent to place someone in reasonable fear. A harassment theory requires a course of conduct with continuity of purpose, not simply counting messages. Constitutionally protected activity is excluded, and the claimed conduct and purpose must be examined.
The threat need not be a single explicit sentence
A credible threat can be communicated in words, electronic messages or a pattern of conduct. The apparent ability to carry it out and the surrounding circumstances matter. The issue is the required intent to cause fear, not whether the accused secretly intended to complete the threatened act. Indirect communications may need review alongside direct contact.
Build a complete chronology
Preserve original threads, calls, voicemails, location information and communications about returning property or arranging legitimate obligations. Identify who initiated each contact and whether the record omits replies or blocked-contact events. A claimed legitimate reason does not automatically justify an entire pattern, but omitted context may change its meaning. Any existing protective order creates a separate compliance and charging question.
What a Defense Review Examines
Pattern and context
Review complete exchanges, frequency, time periods, locations, prior requests, and whether isolated excerpts accurately represent the alleged course of conduct.
Threat and attribution
Examine who controlled the accounts, the meaning and circumstances of the alleged threat, and evidence bearing on reasonable fear.
Records That Help Explain the Matter
Preserve complete communication histories, account information, location records, orders, and witness details. Avoid attempts to resolve the accusation through contact prohibited by an order.
A Hypothetical California Matter
Repeated messages following a San Rafael dispute lead to a stalking allegation. Counsel would examine the full course of communications, purpose, authorship, the alleged credible threat, and any existing order rather than count messages alone.
This fictional example illustrates questions for review. It is not a firm case or a predicted outcome. The county identifies the setting, not a special legal rule or an additional office.
After an Irvine relationship ends, one person alleges repeated threatening messages and appearances. The other says some messages arranged property returns, screenshots omit replies and one encounter was coincidental. A dated chronology and complete communications could clarify the alleged pattern, threat and intent.
Potential Consequences and Next Decisions
An existing protective order, prior record, and the specific conduct can affect the charge and consequences. A private agreement cannot suspend a court order, and a separate protective-order proceeding may continue even without criminal charges.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Electronic communications or a pattern of conduct can be relevant to a credible threat.
An actual plan to carry it out is not required, but the statute’s other mental-state and threat requirements still apply.
No. The applicable following or harassment and credible-threat requirements must be established.
Legal Resources
General information, not advice for a particular case. The cited jury instructions explain elements and selected defenses; they do not calculate a sentence or resolve disputed facts.
