I spent a summer during law school working as an intern for our Courthouse where we provided assistance to litigants representing themselves in family law matters. Basically, I would go to court and assist with filling out paperwork. What struck me the most was the inability of people, who were once happily in love, to act respectfully to one another in that arena.

Often the husband and wife would refuse to sit in the same courtroom with one another, or in the same anti-room, which meant I was walking back and forth between locations to get information and signatures. I found it silly and completely unnecessary. Needless to say, I new immediately from that summer internship that I was not well suited for family law.

There are times in my role as a prosecutor that I have prosecuted behavior that rises to criminal conduct coming out of family law court orders. Usually it has to do with violations of domestic violence restraining orders. It’s always messy, and as a general rule, I do not like to get the criminal justice system involved in family law matters as it makes things infinitely more difficult between the parties.

#27 was a bit different. This was a stalking and criminal threats trial where the father/ex-husband was extremely upset at a court appointed lawyer who represented his child. This lawyer had recommended sole custody of the child to the mother for a variety of reasons. Incensed by the recommendation, the defendant began to follow the lawyer and leave hundreds of voicemails for the lawyer at work. It was described in trial that every morning the lawyer’s voicemail would be completely full when they got to work. It was all the defendant. The voicemails would be cleared and the next day completely full again.

At the same time, the defendant began to call the ex-wife’s lawyer and at one point sent over 500 texts to the lawyer saying that everyone would pay for what they had done to him and his son.

Based on the conduct both lawyers obtained court orders in the family law division precluding the defendant from contacting them outside of regular business hours.

The defendant did not stop his behavior. Instead, during a four day period, the defendant left a total of 26 voicemails threatening to kill the lawyer, threatening to commit acts of grave violence, and threatening to do harm to the lawyer’s children. The lawyer, fearful for obvious reasons contacted law enforcement. When the defendant was arrested he told the officers the lawyer “really needed to be lynched up” and “I don’t care how long they lock me up; when I get out I’m going to continue doing what I have been doing.”

Initially our office filed a criminal complaint alleging one count of stalking and one count of criminal threats. The case went to a preliminary hearing, and based on the testimony at that hearing, it was ultimately amended to 10 separate counts of criminal threats, stalking, and a counts of annoying/harassing telephone communications. The theory was that the harassing communications were separate and distinct in that they occurred over a 4 day period and that each separate message sent the victim into a separate and distinct period of sustained fear.

The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to prison. The trial judge agreed with our theory of the case and found each criminal threat charge a separate and distinct act, sentencing him consecutively for each.

However, as cases go, it was appealed and our appellate court disagreed with the conclusion, finding that the victim listened to the voicemails all at the same time, and for that reason, he could not be sentenced separately for each of the 10 criminal threats convictions. The case was sent back to the trial court for resentencing.

A double digit prison sentence was significantly reduced and the case has had lasting impacts on how prosecutors charge criminal threats in California. As the decision was published and is now relied on by prosecutors and defense attorneys to determine sentencing in these types of matters.

Interested in reading the appellate opinion? Just click here: People v. Bradley Roles