## Facts

- Mario Gonzalez Zavala and Alicia (Wife) were formerly married, later reconciled without remarriage, and had two children.
- Over time, Zavala committed repeated acts of domestic violence against Wife, including grabbing and bruising her arm, placing hands around her throat such that she struggled to breathe, and raising a fist near her face.
- Wife moved out and obtained a restraining order against Zavala.
- Between July 11 and August 29, 2003, Zavala repeatedly contacted Wife in person and by telephone despite the restraining order.
- During the same period, Zavala made express or implied threats toward Wife that caused her to feel tormented and terrorized.
- A jury convicted Zavala of stalking (Cal. Penal Code § 646.9(a)) and misdemeanor child abuse as to his daughter (Cal. Penal Code § 273a(b)).
- The jury acquitted Zavala of making a criminal threat against Wife and of misdemeanor child abuse as to his son.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the stalking conviction under Penal Code § 646.9(a), including a credible threat causing reasonable fear for safety.
2. Whether the trial court erred by (a) not giving a unanimity instruction as to the specific acts constituting stalking, and (b) refusing a defense instruction requiring proof that the victim feared death or great bodily injury.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the misdemeanor child abuse conviction under Penal Code § 273a(b) as to Zavala’s daughter.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- Substantial evidence supported the stalking conviction based on repeated contacts in violation of a restraining order and threats that caused Wife reasonable fear for her safety.
- No unanimity instruction was required because stalking is defined as a course-of-conduct offense occurring over time.
- The trial court properly refused the proposed instruction requiring fear of death or great bodily injury because that element is not required under the amended stalking statute.
- Substantial evidence supported the misdemeanor child abuse conviction as to Zavala’s daughter.

## Legal Principles

- Stalking under Penal Code § 646.9(a) is proved by willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment plus a credible threat that causes the victim reasonable fear for safety; it may be established by a pattern of acts over a defined period.
- When a statute defines an offense as a course of conduct, juror unanimity is not required as to the specific acts making up the course, so long as the jury unanimously finds the course-of-conduct elements satisfied.
- Under the amended stalking statute, the prosecution need not prove a threat to the victim’s life or fear of death or great bodily injury; reasonable fear for safety is sufficient.
- Prior domestic violence evidence may be relevant to whether later threats are “credible” and whether the victim’s fear is reasonable.
- Misdemeanor child abuse under Penal Code § 273a(b) is supported by evidence that a defendant willfully caused or permitted a child to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or placed the child in circumstances likely to produce such harm.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Zavala’s stalking conviction because repeated restraining-order violations and threatening conduct constituted a course of harassment with a credible threat causing reasonable fear, and it upheld the child abuse conviction based on evidence that Zavala’s conduct endangered or harmed his daughter; the court also held that stalking does not require juror agreement on particular acts or proof of threats involving death or great bodily injury.


People v. Zavala, 130 Cal. App. 4th 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)