Have you been accused of a crime?
Call for a free consultation 24/7 toll-free:
(888) 744-7730

California Penal Code Section 273.6 - Violating a Restraining Order

California Penal Code § [Section] 273.6(a) – Violation of Court Order

California Penal Code [CPC] §273.6(a)Violation of Court Order - California Penal Code §273.6(a) makes it illegal to violate any “protective order” as defined under one of five sections of state law. Failure to follow the terms of a protective order can result in arrest and prosecution.

If you're convicted of violating CPC §273.6(a), you face up to one year in a county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both a fine and jail time. The court can order additional payments, if it considers them necessary, including donations to shelters and compensation for expenses associated with violating the order.

What Does California Penal Code §273.6(a) [Violation of Court Order] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of Violation of Court Order under CPC §273.6(a), the prosecution must prove that:

  • A court issued an order that you do (or not do) something; AND,
  • The order was issued in an upcoming domestic violence criminal proceeding; OR,
  • The order was issued as a probation condition after you were convicted of domestic violence, elder abuse, or dependent adult abuse; AND,
  • You knew about the order; AND,
  • You could've followed the order; AND,
  • You violated the order.

Defining “Violation of Court Order” Under CPC §273.6(a)

To convict you under CPC §273.6(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • Court Issued…/Order: A court issued a lawful[1] written order that you do (or refrain from doing) something specified in the order; AND,
  • The Order Was…: The order was a protective order, a “stay away” order, or of some kind issued in a pending criminal proceeding involving domestic violence or as a condition of probation after a conviction for domestic violence,[2] elder[3] abuse,[4] or dependent adult[5] abuse; AND,
  • Knowledge: You knew[6] the order existed; AND
  • Ability: You had the ability to follow the order; AND
  • Intention: You intentionally violated the order.

Note: California law details extensively the acceptable means of providing notice to a restrained person, including in-person judicial notice and verbal notice provided by a law enforcement officer.[7]

Example: Victim Victor has a lawful restraining order against ex-girlfriend Defendant Deirdre, who must remain at least 100 yards (300 feet) from Victor. Deirdre knows this. But the pair work together, a fact which the restraining order doesn't address, and Deirdre will lose her only means of support if she loses her job. When Deirdre arrives at work the day after the order is issued, however, Victor, who's present, calls the police and has Deirdre arrested for violating CPC §273.6(a). Should Deidre be convicted?

Conclusion: Deidre, as the facts state, knew that she was subject to a lawful “stay away” order and knew the order's terms. These are elements of the crime. But Deidre was unable to abide by the order because her contact with Victor was unavoidable; the alternative was losing her livelihood. Thus, Deirdre was unable to obey the terms of the court order. It could also be argued that Deidre didn't intend on violating the court order, as she merely went to work. Deidre, it follows, should be acquitted.

Penalties For “Violation of Court Order” Under CPC §273.6(a)

As mentioned previously, violating a court order, which is normally punished as a Misdemeanor, can result in as much as one (1) year in a county jail, a fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars), or both a fine and imprisonment.[8] Additional fines may be required, however, as statute permits the court to order that up to $5,000 (five-thousand dollars) be paid to an appropriate shelter,[9] or to require that you compensate the person protected by the order for associated expenses like the cost of counseling.[10]

Defenses To “Violation of Court Order” Under CPC §273.6(a)

Three common defenses against a charge of Violation of Court Order under CPC §273.6(a) are:

You Didn't Have The Intent To Violate The Law

Example: Defendant Danilo is subject to a lawful Domestic Violence Restraining Order protecting Victim Val, his ex-wife, by requiring that Danilo remain at least 250 yards (750 feet) from Val at all times. Danilo intends on obeying the order. When Danilo goes to a movie theater, however, he sees Val enter with New Boyfriend. Danilo tries to slip out unseen but Val catches sight of him and calls police. Danilo is arrested for violating CPC §273.6(a). He swears he didn't intend to commit a crime. Police, who only know of Danilo from the court order,[11] will not listen to Danilo. Should he be convicted on these facts?

Conclusion: Danilo knew that he was subject to a “stay away” court order. He knew the terms. He also knew the order was executed lawfully. The facts, furthermore, don't state that Danilo was incapable of obeying the order, nor did Danilo have a compelling reason, such as employment, to be in the theater. But Danilo intended on leaving when he saw Val; he was trying to obey the order and was seen owing only to coincidence. Danilo, therefore, should be acquitted. He didn't have the intent to violate the law.

You Didn't Know About The Court Order

Example: Defendant Douglas is restrained from contact with his grandfather, Victim Vincente, by order of a court with jurisdiction over an elder abuse allegation made against Douglas. Douglas had the chance to oppose the order but didn't appear before the court in-person or through a lawyer. The court has instructed the Clerk's office to give Douglas notice of the order. But the order is never processed because of office personnel changes. Douglas is thus shocked when he's arrested for violating a court order by arriving at a family event attended by Vincente. He has been charged under CPC §273.6(a) but swears he would have avoided his grandfather if he'd been notified. Should Douglas be convicted?  

Conclusion: Douglas couldn't have intended on violating the order because he didn't know there was an order to violate. This is owing to the negligence of the Clerk's office. Since Douglas had no attorney or other legal representative, he had to be served with some form of personal notice about the order being issued. Yet no one told Douglas he had been restrained. Knowledge, however, is an element of the crime; it must be proved in court. If even one element isn't present, an accused person must be acquitted. Douglas, therefore, must be acquitted because he didn't know about the court order.

The Allegation Is False

Example: Defendant Dina has been ordered to remain at least 25 yards (75 feet) from ex-husband Victim Vern by a court with lawful jurisdiction. She obeys the order. But Vern, believing that Dina will get custody of Infant Son in their ongoing divorce proceeding, lies to police, telling them that Dina physically assaulted him, thus violating the order. Although Dina swears that she was at work when the alleged incident occurred, she's nonetheless charged with violating CPC §273.6(a). Is Dina guilty?

Conclusion: Dina, as the facts state, was restrained by an order she intended on following. But, because Vern feared he'd lose custody of Infant Son, police were told of a fictitious assault. It's clear that Dina did nothing wrong. (This should also be easy to establish if Dina has coworkers who can testify to her whereabouts at the time of the reported incident.) Dina must be acquitted. The allegation is false.

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they are frequently charged with CPC §273.6(a) and/or have common elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Included in the California Penal Code are several offenses related to Violation of Court Order, such as: Stalking (CPC §646.9(a)), Cyberstalking (CPC §653.2(a)), Criminal Threats (CPC §422(a)), Elder Abuse (CPC §368), Vandalism (CPC §594(a)) and Contempt of Court (CPC §166(a)(4)).

Stalking

California's law against Stalking (CPC §646.9(a)) applies whenever a person follows or harasses another person and makes a threat with the intent of placing that person in fear for his or her safety or the safety of immediate family. The threat must be “credible,”[12] malicious, and repeated. The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because Stalking itself may qualify as conduct violating a court order, which allows the prosecution to charge you with both offenses in the same trial.

Since Stalking can be punished as a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the facts of your case, the crime is a “wobbler”[13] under California law. If you're convicted of the Misdemeanor form of Stalking, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[14]

Note: The prosecution doesn't have to prove that you intended on carrying out the alleged threat. Also, remember, you can make a threat while in prison or jail and still be guilty of Stalking.[15]

You can find more information on the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. That's our guarantee.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Stalking

To convict you under CPC §646.9(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You maliciously harassed or repeatedly followed another person. You also made a credible threat with the intent of placing that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or for the safety of that person's immediate family.

Example: Defendant Derrick is infatuated with Victim Valerie. He has asked her out several times and has always been rejected. Yet Derrick believes that if he spends enough time near Valerie, she will change her mind. Derrick begins following Valerie around town. He rides the bus when she does, eats at the same restaurants at the same time, and even goes to the laundromat when she washes her clothes. Valerie concludes that Derrick is dangerously obsessed and reports him. He's arrested for violating CPC §646.9(a). Is Derrick guilty?

Conclusion: Derrick repeatedly followed Valerie. This is half the offense. But Derrick made no threat against Valerie or her family; he simply entertained a futile hope about the prospect of a relationship with Valerie. This makes following Valerie something other than malicious. Derrick should be acquitted.

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking (CPC §653.2(a)) law makes it illegal to “place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety [ ] or the safety of [that] person's immediate family” by using an electronic communication device to make “personal identifying information” available to a third party so that he or she will injure, harass, or make unwanted physical contact with the victim. Included are digital images, electronic images “of a harassing nature […] which would be likely to incite or produce [an] unlawful action,” and downloadable material.[16] The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because Cyberstalking may qualify as violating a court order, allowing the prosecution to charge you with both in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Cyberstalking, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to one (1) year in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[17]

Note: The identifying material must've been made available against the victim's will.[18]

You can find more information on the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. That is guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Cyberstalking

To convict you under CPC Section 653.2(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You placed another person, or that person's immediate family, in reasonable fear by using an electronic communication device. You made personal identifying information available to a third party so that he or she would inure, harass, or make unwanted physical contact with that person. The other person, finally, did not consent to the information being made available.

Example: Defendant Donald is angry with ex-wife Victim Valentina for leaving him for Douglas's Best Friend. Douglas gets revenge by posting on an online bulletin board a nude photo he took of Valentina. Beneath her image her presents her full name, address, and an invitation for “every guy who wants to cheat to see [her] any time.” Valentina soon finds herself turning away strange men every day. All complain that her “ad” misled them; one threatens to “come back and make [her] pay.” Terrified, she searches online, finds the posting, deduces what Donald did, contacts police and has Donald arrested for violating CPC §653.2(a). Should he be convicted?

Conclusion: Donald, without Valentina's consent, posted an image online and included with it details that he could've reasonable concluded would cause distress to Valentina. (He only posted the image for this reason, in fact.) He also would've had to use some form of electronic communication device to post the image, whether a computer or a telephone. The image, containing personal identifying information, was calculated to cause third parties to approach Valentina at her home. Men then harassed – and even threatened – Valentina. These facts satisfy the elements of the accusation. Donald should be convicted.

Criminal Threats

The crime of Criminal Threats (CPC §422(a)) occurs whenever anyone threatens another person with a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury. The statement must be taken as a threat in its entirety; it must also be written or verbally communicated. The threat must also be made in a clear and immediate way and, finally, it must create a reasonable fear that the other person or that person's family will be hurt. The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because making a criminal threat can violate the terms of a court order, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both in the same trial.       

Since you can be charged with a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the unique facts of your case, Criminal Threats is a “wobbler”[19] under California criminal law. If you're convicted of the Felony form, the penalty, without additional enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[20] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[21]

Note: Criminal Threats is punishable as part of California's “Three Strikes” system. You will serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison if you get three “strikes” on your criminal record.[22]

You can find more information on the Criminal Threats page of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That is guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Criminal Threats

To convict you under CPC §422(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You threatened to kill or cause great bodily injury to a person or a member of that person's immediate family. You made the threat orally, in writing, or by electronic communication device. You intended the statement to be taken as a threat and the threat was so clear, immediate, unconditional, and specific that it communicated a serious prospect that the threat would be carried out. The threat caused the person to be in sustained fear and, finally, that person's fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

Example: Defendant Duncan hates Victim Vonn's politics. They are neighbors. Vonn and Duncan often argue outside their apartments. One evening, at the end of a particularly nasty dispute, Duncan shouts, “People like you are gonna gets yours! Soon!” Vonn takes this as a threat and begins to worry about his meaning. She contacts police several hours later and reports Duncan. He's arrested for violating CPC §422(a) but swears that he's guilty only of harsh language. Should Duncan be convicted of the crime?

Conclusion: Duncan made an oral statement to Vonn. The statement put Vonn in sustained fear. But these are the only elements of the crime present in these facts. Duncan spoke of persons “like” Vonn, not Vonn herself. The alleged threat was also so vague that even Vonn wondered exactly what it meant. The fear Vonn felt might thus be described as unreasonable. Perhaps of greatest importance, however, is the fact that Duncan didn't threaten Vonn (or someone in her immediate family) with death or great bodily injury. Several elements of the crime are thus missing. Since defendants in this country must be acquitted if even one element of a charge can't be demonstrated in court, Duncan must be acquitted.   

Elder Abuse

Elder Abuse (CPC §368) involves causing someone whom you know to be an elder or dependent adult to suffer under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The law also makes it illegal to willfully inflict unjustifiable physical or mental pain on an elder or dependent adult, or, having the care or custody of an elder or dependent adult, to cause the person to be injured or to be placed in a situation in which his or her health is endangered. The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because court orders are often issued in connection with elder abuse complaints, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.       

Since you can be charged with a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on the unique facts of your case, Elder Abuse is a “wobbler”[23] under California criminal law. If you're convicted of the Felony form, the penalty, without additional enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[24] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[25]

Note: “A person who does not have care or custody of an elder [or] a dependent adult may still have a legal duty to supervise and control the conduct of a third person who can inflict abuse on the elder [or] dependent adult if the person has a special relationship with the third person.”[26]

You can find more information on the Elder Abuse page of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That is always guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Elder Abuse

To convict you under CPC §368, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical or mental suffering on an elder or dependent adult or you caused or permitted an elder or dependent adult to suffer pain or you allowed someone, whose conduct you had a duty to control, to inflict unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering on that person, or you, having care or custody of that person, willfully caused or permitted that person's health to be injured or you caused or permitted that person to be placed in a situation where his or her health was endangered. The person is or was an elder or dependent adult and, finally, you knew or reasonably should've known that the person was an elder or dependent adult when you acted.

Example: Defendant Daniel, legal custodian of his seventy-year-old grandfather, Victim Vic, whom Daniel hates, knows that Vic has an ongoing dispute with Neighbor. Vic is also in excellent physical condition. He runs track, does hundreds of push-ups every day, and has won three weightlifting competitions for seniors over the age of sixty-five. Thus, when Daniel arrives at the home he shares with Vic only to find Neighbor standing in the driveway with his foot on Vic's neck, Vic pleading for Daniel's help, Daniel shouts, “Get yourself outta that, ya freak o' nature!” He goes inside; Vic is seriously injured. Police arrest Daniel later and charge him under CPC §368. Daniel insists Vic is strong enough to fight his own fights. He also says he's not responsible for someone he can't stand. Is Daniel correct about the situation?

Conclusion: Daniel knew that Vic – an elderly immediate family member – was in peril; he saw Neighbor doing something very dangerous to Vic and heard Vic pleading for assistance. But Daniel did nothing. Vic was hurt as the result. This qualifies as permitting a person whom Daniel knew to be an elder to be placed in a situation where that elder's health was endangered. (He also allowed Vic to suffer.) Daniel was, finally, legal custodian to Vic. He was responsible for keeping Vic from suffering or being endangered. Vic's physical condition was thus completely irrelevant. Daniel is incorrect and should be convicted of the charge.

Vandalism

The crime of Vandalism (CPC §594(a)) occurs whenever anyone destroys, damages, or uses graffiti to deface personal property that isn't his or her own. If the property belonged to a “public entity,”[27] or the federal government, the jury is allowed to assume that you didn't have the right to destroy it. The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because Vandalism is often associated with violating a court order, permitting the prosecution to charge you with both crimes in the same trial.        

Since you can be charged with a Felony or a Misdemeanor, depending on whether you committed more than $400 (four-hundred dollars') worth of damage,[28] Vandalism is a “wobbler”[29] under California law. If you're convicted of the Felony form, the penalty, without additional enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[30] OR,
  • A fine of up to $50,000 (fifty-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[31]

Note: “Graffiti […] includes an unauthorized inscription, word, figure, mark, or design that is written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on real or personal property.”[32]

You can find more information on the California Vandalism Lawyers page of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Vandalism

To convict you under CPC §594(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You maliciously damaged, destroyed, or defaced personal property with graffiti or with other inscribed material. You also didn't personally own the property or own the property with someone else.

Example: Defendant Denise, knowing that ex-husband Victim Vinton has a “stay away” restraining order requiring that she's to remain at least 100 yards (300 feet) from him at all times, goes to Vinton's home while Vinton is at work. She finds his car in the driveway and ‘keys the door' (drags a key along the door), thus ruining the paint. Denise doesn't see that Neighbor is watching. Neighbor later tells Vinton what he saw; Vinton, in turn, calls police. Denise is charged with Vandalism under CPC §594(a). She insists that she did not violate her court order and should be freed. Should Denise be convicted?

Conclusion: Denise maliciously damaged Vinton's personal property when she vandalized his car door. She had no legal right to do so, nor did Vinton give her permission. These are the elements of the crime. That she didn't violate her court order means only that Denise won't be convicted of another offense[33] – but Denise should still be convicted of Vandalism.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court (CPC §166(a)(4)) occurs when a person willfully creates a disturbance meant to interrupt the court process. This includes “[w]illful disobedience [to] the terms as written of any process or court order or out-of-state order, lawfully issued by a court, including orders pending trial.”[34] The crime is related to Violation of Court Order because violating a court order is itself a form of contempt.

If you're convicted of Contempt of Court under CPC §166(a)(4), the penalty for a first offense may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[35]

You can find more information on the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann California Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Contempt of Court

To convict you under CPC §166(a)(4), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

A court lawfully issued an order that you do (or not do) something. You knew about the order and its contents. You had the ability to follow the order. Finally, you willfully violated the court order.

Example: Defendant Darian violates her court order by failing to stay away from ex-girlfriend Victim Vi. She's charged with Violation of Court Order and Contempt of Court. Darian admits to the violation but insists that she can't be charged with both crimes. Is Darian correct?

Conclusion: Penal Code §166(a)(4) states explicitly that “[w]illful disobedience of the terms as written of any process or court order”[36] is punishable as Contempt. The two statutes also require proving different facts and are, therefore, different crimes.[37] Darian is incorrect.

What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Violation of Court Order?

The State of California regards Violation of Court Order as a serious offense. If you're charged with Violation of Court Order, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.

Remember, a professional criminal defense attorney may be able to:

  • Negotiate a lesser charge in a plea bargain;
  • Reduce your sentence;
  • Or even get charges dismissed completely.

The attorneys at the Kann California Defense Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Violation of Court Order, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a defense strategy that will help you obtain the very best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Defense Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

References

[1] “The defendant may not be convicted for violating an order that is unconstitutional, and the defendant may bring a collateral attack on the validity of the order as a defense to this charge.” See “Bench Notes,” California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[2] “Domestic violence means abuse committed against an adult, a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, or former spouse, or cohabitant, or former cohabitant, or person with whom the defendant has had a child, or person who dated or is dating the defendant, or person who was or is engaged to the defendant.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[3] “An elder is someone who is at least 65 years old.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).[4] “Abuse means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or placing another person in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself or to someone else.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[5] “A dependent adult is someone who is between 18 and 64 years old and has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights. This definition includes an adult who has physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have decreased because of age. A dependent adult is also someone between 18 and 64 years old who is an inpatient in a health facility[,] psychiatric health facility[,] or chemical dependency recovery hospital.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[6] “The People must prove that” you “knew of the court order and that [you] had the opportunity to read the order or to otherwise become familiar with what it said. But the People do not have to prove that” you “actually read the court order.” (Emphasis added.) See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[7] See California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §527.6.[8] See CPC §273.6 (a).

[9] See CPC §273.6 (h) (1).

[10] See CPC §273.6 (h) (2).

[11] Statute requires that law enforcement be notified about court order-related matters. See CCP § 527.6 (r) (6).

[12] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1301 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[13] See “Wobbler” definition at UsLegal.com.

[14] See CPC §646 (a). 

[15] See Endnote 12.

[16] See CPC §653.2 (a).

[17] See above.

[18] See Endnote 16.

[19] See Endnote 13.

[20] See CPC §1170 (h). (Amended (as amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 36, Sec. 17) by Stats. 2018, Ch. 1001, Sec. 1. (AB 2942) Effective January 1, 2019.)  

 [21] See CPC §672.

[22]  See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).  

[23] See Endnote 13.

[24] See CPC §368 (b) (1).

[25] See Endnote 21.

[26] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 831 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[27] See California Government Code (GOV) §811.2.

[28] See CPC §594 (b) (1).

[29] See Endnote 13.

[30] See Endnote 20. 

 

[31] See Endnote 28.

[32] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 2900 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[33] This assumes, of course, that the court order didn't direct Denise to refrain from interfering with Vinton's personal property as well.

[34] See CPC §166 (a) (4).  

[35] See CPC §19.  

[36] See Endnote 34.

[37] Compare California Criminal Jury Instructions 2700 (CALCRIM) (2017) with California Criminal Jury Instructions 2701 (CALCRIM) (2017). 

Menu