People v. Clayburg, 211 Cal. App. 4th 86

This appeal centers on the meaning of 'victim' in Penal Code section 646.9 for postconviction restraining orders.
The named stalking victim was B., appellant’s former husband, who shares a daughter with appellant, and a 10-year restraining order was issued restricting contact with the daughter.
Appellant challenged the restraining order on the ground that the daughter was not a named victim of the stalking under the first sentence of §646.9(k)(l).
The majority read the two sentences of §646.9(k)(l) together, harmonizing them to conclude the child could be protected as part of the 'wider net' of the statute.
Daughter suffered emotional harm from multiple incidents (threats, property damage, and fear) arising from appellant’s conduct toward the family, leading to a restraining order carried by daughter.
The court affirmed the judgment and held that a person who suffers emotional harm as the immediate family of a named stalking victim can be treated as a 'victim' for postconviction restraining orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether immediate family of a stalking victim is a 'victim' for postconviction restraining orders.	Clayburg: daughter fits 'victim' under two-sentence reading and remedial purpose.	Clayburg: only named victim qualifies; cannot extend to others.	Yes; daughter is a victim for postconviction order.

Almar Limited v. County of Ventura, 56 Cal.App.4th 105 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 1997) (educational point on interpreting living statutes and justice)
Unzueta v. Ocean View School Dist., 6 Cal.App.4th 1689 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 1992) (avoid dictionary-only statutory interpretation)
People v. O’Neal, 122 Cal.App.4th 817 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2004) (emotional damage can render a non-named person a victim for restitution/relief)
People v. Gonzales, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (statutory construction in pari materia and remedial aims)
In re Pedro T., 8 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 1994) (lenity applies when legislative purpose is unclear)