B321249
Cal. Ct. App.May 25, 2023Background
- Haywood and Sowemimo were formerly coworkers with a personal relationship; after a falling-out in spring 2021, a series of anonymous texts, emails, calls, and one voicemail threatened Haywood and his girlfriend and referenced the Bible and violence; a car of Haywood’s girlfriend was scratched and Sowemimo attempted to repossess a car he had loaned Haywood.
- Haywood first sought a civil harassment restraining order; the trial court denied that petition on August 31, 2021, but advised Sowemimo not to contact Haywood.
- After the denial, additional threatening communications and emails—some explicitly bearing Sowemimo’s name—were received; Haywood filed a second petition following a December 26, 2021 email exchange.
- At the March 14, 2022 hearing both parties testified; the court admitted the emails, texts, and one voicemail and found the messages shared identifying content and stylistic similarities linking them to Sowemimo; the court found Sowemimo not credible.
- The court issued a one-year civil harassment restraining order (no contact, 100-yard distance, no harassment); Sowemimo appealed. The order expired March 14, 2023 (mootness noted), but the appellate court addressed the merits and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haywood) | Defendant's Argument (Sowemimo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to link messages to defendant | Circumstantial proof: messages contained unique facts only Sowemimo knew, similar style/grammar, and some emails bore his name | He did not send the messages; no business records tying numbers/emails to him; police did not seek protection | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supported finding by clear and convincing evidence (unique knowledge, consistent style, credibility finding against defendant). |
| Admissibility under Penal Code §632 (recorded communications) | Texts/emails and voicemail were admissible; voicemail reasonably related to violent felony exception | Some admitted evidence was recorded without consent and thus inadmissible under §632 | Affirmed. Texts/emails are not §632 recordings; voicemail consent is implied by act of leaving a voicemail and fell within the §633.5 exception; admission not an abuse of discretion. |
| Res judicata / prior denial bars new order | New, post-denial harassment justified a new petition | Prior denial of a restraining order precludes relitigation | Affirmed. Res judicata did not apply because the court based its order on events occurring after the prior denial; new facts/circumstances allowed the later petition. |
| Denial of a fair hearing | N/A (Haywood relied on record) | Hearing was unfair | Rejected/waived. Argument waived for lack of developed briefing; record shows defendant had counsel, cross-examined witness, presented testimony and objections — hearing was fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba, 215 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2013) (mootness doctrine when appellate relief would be ineffective)
- Parisi v. Mazzaferro, 5 Cal.App.5th 1219 (2016) (standard of substantial-evidence review for civil harassment orders)
- People v. Cruz, 46 Cal.App.5th 715 (2020) (a writing may be authenticated by its contents and circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Flores, 9 Cal.5th 371 (2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Kim v. Reins Internat. Cal., Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020) (elements and scope of res judicata)
- Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., 231 Cal.App.4th 134 (2014) (res judicata does not bar claims based on new facts or changed circumstances)