People v. Lopez
240 Cal.App.4th 436 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A stalking conviction under California Penal Code § 646.9 requires proof that the defendant willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed the victim, and made a credible threat with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear for their safety, even if the threat is implied by a pattern of conduct rather than overt statements of violence.
Facts:
- Angie Rizzo met Cesar Lopez at the Mission Library when she was 16 and he was 26, where they helped each other with homework and he referred to himself as 'Cesar Cold.'
- Shortly after Rizzo turned 18, Lopez took her to a graphically sexual movie, where he kissed and groped her without her full consent, and then insisted on walking her home.
- Following this incident, Rizzo avoided Lopez, who then began sending her frequent, angry, accusatory, and lengthy emails, which made her uncomfortable.
- After Rizzo left for college, Lopez emailed her proposing a meeting in Los Angeles; she agreed, but found him distant and decided to cut off all communication, though Lopez continued to send packages to her mother's address once or twice a year for five or six years.
- In April 2012, Lopez sent Rizzo a birthday card and began sending Facebook messages under the name 'Crystal Snow Lovestar'; in July, he sent a message with a picture of a large labyrinth in Rizzo's likeness, located five blocks from her home where she ran daily, which she found 'very scared' after seeing it in person.
- Lopez sent Rizzo another package that included a letter acknowledging her dislike of his communications and asking, 'Well, it just became real! What are your [sic] going to do about it, denial, run and hide or bravely face it?'; he also invited her to a 'cleansing ceremony' at the labyrinth, asking her to dress in white.
- On separate occasions, Lopez appeared at a bus stop a block and a half from Rizzo’s home, emerged from scaffolding as she walked home, startled her by putting his hands on her shoulders on a bus, and confronted her near her home, eventually stating he could not accept their 'relationship' being over despite her frantic pleas for him to stop.
- Lopez sent Rizzo a red envelope with a blog link and a napkin inviting her to another 'healing ceremony' at Bernal Hill, leading Rizzo to feel 'intense anxiety and fear and a sense of hopelessness.'
Procedural Posture:
- Cesar Lopez was charged by information filed on February 13, 2013, with one count of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) in the San Francisco City and County Superior Court (trial court/court of first instance).
- Presentation of the case to a jury began on May 10, 2013.
- On May 14, 2013, the jury found Lopez guilty as charged.
- On July 3, 2013, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted Lopez probation for a period of five years.
- Lopez, as defendant and appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal on July 8, 2013, to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to uphold a stalking conviction when the defendant's conduct, though not containing overt threats of violence, implied a credible threat and demonstrated an intent to instill reasonable fear in the victim through a prolonged, escalating pattern of obsessive harassment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kline, P.J.
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to uphold the stalking conviction because Cesar Lopez's prolonged and escalating pattern of conduct, though lacking overt threats of violence, implied a credible threat and demonstrated an intent to instill reasonable fear in Angie Rizzo. The court affirmed that a 'credible threat' under Penal Code § 646.9, subdivision (g) can be 'implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct,' made with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear. The First Amendment's protection of 'true threats' does not shield speech that truly poses a danger to society, and the 'credible threat' requirement is separate from the 'harassment' requirement, meaning the conduct must do more than just alarm or annoy. The court distinguished this case from others like Ryan D. and George T. (which involved specific individual expressions and criminal threats under § 422) by emphasizing the combination of Lopez's communications and conduct over many years. The court found strong evidence of Lopez's obsession, his knowledge of Rizzo's fear (explicitly stated by her and acknowledged by him), and his persistent appearances near her home despite her repeated requests to stop and police intervention. His actions, such as constructing the labyrinth near her running path and appearing unexpectedly after police detention, demonstrated his knowledge of her movements and an unwillingness to cease contact, which a reasonable person would interpret as threatening. The 'cleansing' or 'healing' ceremony invitations, in context, added an ominous tone. The court concluded that Lopez's persistence despite Rizzo's escalating pleas and police involvement amply supported the inference that he intended the fear he caused, aligning with precedents that intent can be inferred from conduct where the defendant insists on contact despite clear avoidance attempts and warnings.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the interpretation of California's stalking statute (§ 646.9) by clarifying that a 'credible threat' can be entirely implied by a sustained pattern of conduct, even without explicit verbal or written threats of violence. It underscores that the intent to instill fear can be inferred from a defendant's persistent actions, especially when they continue despite the victim's clear communications of distress and police intervention. The ruling provides valuable guidance for prosecuting stalking cases where the harasser avoids direct threats but creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear through obsessive, intrusive, and escalating behavior, thereby limiting the use of First Amendment defenses in such contexts.
