Stalking Defined

Indirect Threats Through Intermediaries - Penal Code 646.9 (a)

The stalking statute does not require direct contact.  Stalking can be completed through indirect communication.

The victim and defendant had a brief acquaintance in high school, which ended when the victim rejected the defendant’s advances. After 30 years, the defendant's stalking behavior began. 

In a Manhattan Beach Police investigation, the defendant was convicted of felony stalking for sending sexually charged and threatening emails to the victim, including disturbing messages about his obsession. He also created a personal website outlining reasons why she should be his wife and traveled over 400 miles to confront her at an art fair, forcing her to flee. 

After his conviction, a protective order was issued to prevent any contact with the victim. However, the defendant continued to send an “avalanche” of inappropriate emails and texts (40 pages) to the victim’s family, referencing her in alarming ways and disregarding the restraining order. 

Despite knowing his messages would be forwarded to the victim, the defendant persisted. He was subsequently convicted for stalking with prior offenses and sentenced to six years in prison. He appealed, arguing that because he never directly contacted the victim, he should only be charged with attempted stalking (664 P.C.).

The 2DCA ruled that the defendant's actions constituted purposeful harassment, creating credible threats that instilled fear in both the victim and her family. The court clarified that the stalking statute does not require direct contact; the crime was complete through the indirect communication. The ruling upheld the stalking conviction.