Information on the crime of annoying or harassing a person by phone are found at California penal code sections 653m(a) and 653m(b).

​

A single incident of harassment by phone is sufficient to support a criminal charge of annoying phone calls under PC 653m(a). For multiple phone calls that amount to harassment as a whole, but no individual phone call by itself is obviously harassing, the criminal charge is filed under PC 653m(b).

​

PC 653m(a): For a single occurrence of harassment by phone (PC 653m(a)), there is no crime unless the alleged victim can show that the phone call was placed with the intent to harass or that the language used by the defendant on the phone was of a threatening nature or obscene. This can be difficult to prove in criminal court.

​

Evidence of phone records or call logs that show multiple phone calls can support a criminal charge of annoying or harassing phone calls filed under PC 653m(b).

 

The number of phone calls, the relationship between the parties, the length of phone calls, and the credible testimony of the alleged victim becomes important evidence in PC 653m(b) cases; however, PC 653m(b) cases (repeated calls) is usually easier to prove in criminal court because of the objective evidence of the phone records.

​

Note: One of the most common ways to support a charge of either PC 653m(a) or 653m(b) is the use of voice recordings left on voicemails.it is usually illegal to record another person's voice without their express or implied permission); however, there is an exception to this rule that allows victims of annoying or harassing phone calls to record another person's voice for the limited purpose of proving that the harassment is actually taking place (See Illegal Recordings).

​

To be found guilty of annoying or harassing phone calls under PC 653m(a) the district attorney will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

 

Intended to contact the victim by telephone, or other electronic means, and

​

That when the defendant contacted the victim he or she used obscene language, or threatened the victim with injury to person or property.

 

For PC 653m(b) charges, the district attorney only needs to prove an intent to annoy or harass the victim with repeated phone calls under (No obscene language or threats required [PC 653m(b) Abbrev.).

​

The language of PC 653m(a) reads: Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device, uses obscene language or addresses the other person with any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person, or any member of the other person's  family, is guilty of a misdemeanor (PC 653m(a) Abbrev,).

​

Note: An electronic device is defined at California penal code section 653m(g): Electronic devices include, but are not limited to, telephone, cellular phones (cell phone), computers, video recorders, smart phone, or any device that transfers signals, writings, images, sounds, or data.

​

Sentence for PC 653m

​

Annoying or harassing phone calls charged under PC 653m(a) or 653m(b) is classified as a misdemeanor. If found guilty of a violation of either PC 653m(a) or PC 653m(b) the defendant could face up to 180 days in the county jail.

​

Probation Sentence: Probation is a period of supervision in lieu of an actual jail sentence. Probation sentences carry terms of probation that must be followed in order to avoid an actual jail sentence. A probation sentence may be available in some PC 653m cases depending on the facts of the case and the defendant's criminal history. In some cases, if probation is granted and the defendant is ordered to serve a jail sentence that jail sentence may be served on work release or house arrest in lieu of actual jail.

​

In addition to a possible jail sentence, if found guilty of the crime of annoying or harassing phone calls (PC 653m), the defendant could face any of the following: criminal fines, stay-away orders, harsh probation terms, restitution, negative consequences for immigration status, loss or suspension of a professional license, civil lawsuits, mandatory anger management classes, and more.

​

Defense to PC 653m Crimes

​

Common defenses to a criminal charge of PC 653m include, but are not limited to: Showing that the alleged victim actually requested the calls or the circumstances show the need for good faith voluminous and repeated calls (multiple disconnects or fluid situations dealing with child custody or child visitation are common), insufficient evidence to prove the charge, mistake of fact, statute of limitations, intoxication, insanity, coerced confessions, illegal search and seizure, and more. 

 

Note: it is not a defense to a criminal charge of annoying phone calls to claim that the electronic device used to convey the harassment was not the defendant's. In fact, anyone who allows his or her phone to be used to annoy or harass another person may be charged with a crime (See PC 653m(e)).

 

Also, it is not a defense to show that the victim called the defendant (as opposed to the other way around) if the defendant actually requested a return call.

 

If you or a loved one is charged with the criminal offense of annoying or harassing phone calls charged either as PC 653m(a) or PC 653m(b), contact our criminal

defense attorneys today for a free consultation. Our criminal defense attorneys have successfully handled hundreds of misdemeanor and felony cases, including criminal charges of annoying or harassing phone calls. Call today!

​

909-913-3138

​