Paul Hupp’s convictions for threats to executive officers has been reversed on appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the four judges threatened by Hupp are not executive officers, making the threats against them categorically excluded from the law Hupp was found to have violated.
Hupp had left multiple messages on a federal magistrate judge’s courtroom answering machine in 2018. In these messages, he threatened to come to the judge’s house if he did not promptly schedule a status conference. Hupp sent a letter repeating the threat to the judge’s home address.
Months later, Hupp filed a vexatious litigant request in Riverside Superior Court. He addressed the request to two Riverside Superior judges, whom he called derogatory names. His request listed their home addresses, and he threatened to show up at their houses if they did not issue a timely ruling on his request.
Months after that request, Hupp filed a motion to disqualify a different Riverside Superior judge. In the motion to disqualify, he called the judge derogatory names. He also said if the judge harmed his family, it would be the mistake of her life because “there will not be a rock on the face of this earth that this little b—- will be able to hide under.”
The Riverside District Attorney filed a complaint June 20, 2019, charging Hupp with one count of threatening a judge in violation of Penal Code Section 76, in regard to the actions regarding the federal judge, and, in an amended complaint, brought an additional charge of attempting to deter an executive officer in violation of Penal Code Section 69. Section 76 establishes that threatening bodily harm to any of a list of public officials is a crime, while Section 69 states that threatening an executive officer is a crime.
A trial judge dismissed the Section 76 charge because Hupp’s statements did not threaten death or serious bodily injury. After the charge was dismissed, the Riverside District Attorney’s Office filed a document (an information) charging Hupp with four counts of violating Section 69. Hupp was found guilty by jury April 21, 2022, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Hupp appealed, arguing that judges are not executive officers. The Court of Appeal agreed with Hupp.
The appellate ruling says that “executive officers” refers to officers in the executive branch of government, and not officers in the judicial branch.
“Under the plain meaning of the term ‘executive’ in the government context, judges are not executive officers; they are judicial officers,” the appellate ruling says.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Frank Menetrez wrote the opinion, which was joined by Justices Douglas Miller and Michael Raphael
William Melcher, under appointment, represented Hupp.
Riverside Case No. RIF1902599
San Bernardino Case No. BAF2101138
Appellate Case Nos. E079389, E079543
Read the ruling here.
