Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 9.16.2 n1 Stalking: Definition Expanded (PC 646.9(b)).
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1 n1.]
F 9.16.2 n2 Constitutionality Of Stalking Statute (PC 646.9(b)).
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1 n2 and FORECITE BIBLIO 9.16.1, 9.16.2, 16.480.]
F 9.16.2 n3 Stalking: Intent to Carry Out The Threat.
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1 n3.]
F 9.16.2 n4 Stalking Following Court Order: No Double Jeopardy Based On Prior Contempt Conviction.
People v. Kelley (97) 52 CA4th 568, 576 [60 CR2d 653] held that PC 646.9(b) does not define the crime of stalking in violation of a restraining order. The section merely defines stalking. The provisions relating to the violation of a restraining order do not define a crime. They merely create a punishment enhancement. As such, they are not to be considered in the double jeopardy analysis. Accordingly, even if the defendant has previously been convicted of contempt based on his or her violation of a court order, a subsequent conviction for stalking in violation of that same court order is not prohibited by double jeopardy.
F 9.16.2 n5 Stalking In Violation Of Court Order: Stipulation To Violation Of Court Order.
People v. Kelley (97) 52 CA4th 568 [60 CR2d 653] held that the violation of a court order provision in PC 646.9(b) is not an element of the crime but merely creates a punishment enhancement. (See FORECITE F 9.16.2 n4.) Accordingly, under the rationale of People v. Bouzas (91) 53 C3d 467, 480 [279 CR 847] the defendant may stipulate to the violation of the court order so as to avoid jury consideration of that evidence. Alternatively, under the rationale of People v. Weathington (91) 231 CA3d 69, 90 [282 CR 170] the court order violation could be bifurcated for consideration separately from the stalking violation itself. (See e.g. FORECITE F 12.65 n2; F 10.38 n1; F 14.40 n1.)
F 9.16.2 n6 Harassment May Be Committed In A Single Course Of Conduct.
(See FORECITE F 9.16.1 n4.)
F 9.16.2a
Stalking: Omission of “Substantial” Emotional Harm Element
(PC 646.9(b))
*Re CJ 9.16.2:
Adoption of FORECITE Instruction By CALJIC: See FORECITE F 9.16.1a.
F 9.16.2b
Stalking: Inapplicable To Constitutionally Protected Behavior
(PC 646.9(b))
*Add to CJ 9.16.2:
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1b.]
F 9.16.2c
Stalking: Definition Of “Immediate Family”
*Add to CJ 9.16.2:
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1c]
F 9.16.2d
Stalking: Specification, Definition and Unanimity As To Predicate Acts
*Re: CJ 9.16.2:
[See FORECITE F 9.16.1d.]
