Misdemeanor Stalking is disciplined by a term of up to 1 (1) year in an exceedingly county jail, a fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars), or each a fine and imprisonment. However California stalking laws elements is also punishable as a part of California's “Three Strikes” sentencing regime. If you are guilty of crime Stalking, the penalty, while not extra sweetening, is also up to 3 (3) years in an exceedingly prison, a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars), or each a fine and imprisonment.
Note that if you accrue 3 “strikes” on your record you may serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in an exceedingly prison. The Nakase Law Firm proud to have the best person lawyers in California, skilled car accidents, motorcycle accidents, and truck accidents. In case of any personal mishap you must contact personal injury attorney from Nakase law firm.
Defenses to “Stalking” below CPC §646.9(a)
Four common defenses against a charge of Stalking below CPC §646.9(a) are:
You Were Engaged In Constitutionally Protected Activity
Example: suspect Dean opposes the international policies of company and its corporate executive, Victim Vonn. He stands on the general public curb across the road from Oil Company's Downtown LA offices from high noon to 1 PM daily whereas holding a proof and singing “Vonn could be a crook! Everyone look!” Vonn feels aggravated and embarrassed. Finally, angry once a consumer makes a satiric comment regarding Dean's protest, Vonn calls police and has Dean inactive for violating CPC §646.9(a). Is Dean guilty of this crime?
Conclusion: regardless of whether or not Dean was attempting to harass or disturb Vonn, he was standing across the road from Oil Company's offices and conducting a protest on a public curb. He did nothing over hold a proof and chant. He did this at noontide, a wonderfully cheap time to create blast in Downtown l. a. . Dean's purpose was expressing negative opinion on matters of public concern; he wasn't attempting to speak a threat. Finally, the facts do not state that Dean needed allow. He was so liberated to do specifically what he did; it had been conduct allowable below the primary modification to the Constitution. Dean so ought to be innocent. He was engaged in constitutionally protected activity.
The Threat wasn't Credible
Example: Victim Vail is stepping into her automobile once she's annoyed by neighbor suspect Danica. The incident ends with Danica ominous Vail by claiming that Danica is aware of Bean Town outlaw James ‘Whitey' Bulger which Danica “will have ‘Whitey' bury” her. Vail, who's originally from the Bean Town space, is afraid by the threat. She spends a sleepless night barricading herself within her flat before occupation police. Danica is inactive and charged below CPC §646.9(a). Is Danica guilty on these facts?
Conclusion: Danica created a threat that was meant to place Vail in worry. It succeeded, as proved by Vail's barricading herself within her home. The worry was conjointly sustained over the course of a full night. The facts even stipulate that Danica “harassed” Vail. These are the weather of Stalking. Whereas Vail might have detected of Bulger, however, she was apparently unaware that he was killed in jail in 2018. It's so not possible for him to go to any untoward bear on Vail or her immediate family. Therefore, since it's unreasonable to worry the attack of a dead man, Danica ought to be innocent. The threat wasn't credible.
The Accusation is fake
Example: Victim Van, meaning to force his new neighbor, suspect metropolis, from the block, reports that metropolis “threatened” him “with death” which he is “holding [Van's] whole family in constant agonize. “Metropolis swears that he has no plan what Van's talking regarding which he is innocent of the crime. ought to metropolis be acquitted?
Conclusion: Van, because the facts state, fictitious a charge in an attempt to possess metropolis inactive. Metropolis ne'er vulnerable Van, even as he says, and so he ought to be innocent . The accusation against him is fake.
You Were the Victim of Mistaken Identity
Example: Victim Vee has seen Stalker, a person who's followed her on many occasions and who once vulnerable to “visit her reception.” Vee reports Stalker to police, who, in turn, arrest suspect Dan, a person with a listing who powerfully resembles Stalker. however Dan swears that he has been mistaken for somebody else. he's charged anyway below CPC §646.9(a). Ought to Dan be guilty or acquitted?
Conclusion: Dan and Stalker, whereas quite similar, are indeed totally different folks. It may be likely police believe Dan is guilty as a result of he incorporates a listing. However they're incorrect; Dan isn't the person stalking Vee. Dan, therefore, ought to be innocent of the charge. He was the victim of mistaken identity.
Note: The crimes below are delineate usually as “related” as a result of they're oft charged with CPC §646.9(a) and/or have common parts that has got to be established on the far side an inexpensive doubt.
Included within the California legal code are many offenses associated with Stalking: snatch (CPC §207(a)), Criminal Threats (CPC §422(a)), Harmful Matter Sent to kid (CPC §288.2(a)(1)), Annoying Phone Calls (CPC §653m(a)), “Revenge Porn” (CPC §647(j)(4)(A)) and Posting Harmful Things on the web (CPC §653.2(a)).