People v. Lopez
192 Cal.Rptr.3d 585
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cesar Lopez was convicted of stalking under Penal Code section 646.9(a) after a jury trial.
- Rizzo, who had met Lopez when she was 16, became the target of Lopez’s extensive communications and gestures following their initial contact.
- Lopez engaged in a multi-year pattern of emails, Facebook messages, blogs, flower remnants, and public labyrinth art directed at Rizzo, despite her attempts to disengage.
- Lopez repeatedly contacted Rizzo and sent packages, letters, and invitations to meet, including at Bernal Hill, escalating after police involvement.
- Rizzo reported fear and anxiety; she took precautions and ultimately contacted police; Lopez was arrested after a confrontation near Bernal Hill.
- The trial court suspended sentence and granted five years of probation; Lopez timely appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and First Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a credible threat element | Lopez argues no intent to threaten or violence evidenced. | Lopez contends conduct lacked implied threat under 646.9(g). | Yes, the conduct implied a credible threat. |
| Whether First Amendment analysis applies independently | Content should be reviewed substantively under standard standards. | Independent First Amendment review is necessary under George T. for credible threats. | Independent review not necessary; sufficient evidence supports conviction under standard review. |
| Whether the combination of Lopez’s communications and conduct constitutes stalking | Persistent, close-proximity, and targeted conduct showing fear satisfies stalking. | Harassment alone did not prove willingness to use violence. | Combination of conduct and communications established stalking. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re George T., 33 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2004) (independent review for First Amendment defenses in threats cases)
- People v. Bolden, 29 Cal.4th 515 (Cal. 2002) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency review)
- People v. Kipp, 26 Cal.4th 1100 (Cal. 2001) (standard for reviewing elements beyond direct proof)
- People v. Uecker, 172 Cal.App.4th 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (implied threats from course of conduct; multiple victims and stalking context)
- Falck, 52 Cal.App.4th 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (circumstantial inference of intent to cause fear in stalking context)