People v. Zavala
California Court of Appeal
130 Cal. App. 4th 758 (2005)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1991, Mario Gonzalez Zavala (defendant) and his wife, Alicia Zavala (Alicia), divorced following a domestic-violence incident. The couple reconciled and began living together with their two children. The relationship deteriorated. In June 2003, Alicia obtained a temporary restraining order and a home-removal order. Throughout July and August, Zavala repeatedly violated the court orders by calling Alicia and visiting the home. During the phone calls and visits, Zavala would yell obscenities and threaten to end Alicia’s life. Eventually, Alicia and the children were forced to stay at her parents’ home. The State of California (plaintiff) filed charges against Zavala for stalking. At trial, Alicia testified that she feared for her safety and about the multiple threatening encounters. Zavala was convicted. Zavala appealed the conviction on multiple grounds. First, Zavala argued that the state failed to prove that Alicia suffered substantial emotional distress. Second, Zavala argued that the state failed to prove he had made a credible threat of death or bodily injury and that he had the apparent ability to carry out the threat. Third, Zavala argued that that the trial court had erred by rejecting his jury instructions. Fourth, Zavala argued that the court erred by instructing the jury that Zavala’s prior violent acts could be used as evidence for his predisposition to commit a stalking offense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McDonald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.