MATTHEW RAFAT

1
Pro Per
2

3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

4 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
5 HALL OF JUSTICE
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. C1914108
7 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY
INSTRUCTION
8 v.
9 MATTHEW RAFAT, (MISDEMEANOR, PC 602.1)

10 Defendant. Date: October 13, 2020

11
Time: 9:00 a.m.
12
Dept: 52
13
Judge: Hon. Griffin M.J. Bonini
14
15 Warrant/Charge: July 30, 2019

16 (1900129088)

17
18 Defendant MATTHEW RAFAT (“MATTHEW”) respectfully submits the following
19 proposed jury instruction in the above-referenced matter.
20 INTRODUCTION
21 This case involves an alleged misdemeanor at SAP Arena during a two-day basketball
22 event in March 2019 during which SJPD officers were paid by a corporate entity for their
23 presence. The warrant and police report contradict each other in terms of the specific Penal Code
24 violation. The warrant, signed by Judge Cynthia A. Sevely on July 30, 2019, cites an “offense of
25 PC602.1-M-OBSTRUCT OR INTIMIDATE BUSINESS OPERATORS.” [Emphasis added.]
26 The only way the State of California can avoid a Constitutional due process violation is
27 to prosecute the specific Penal Code listed and authorized in the warrant, which is PC 602.1,
28 and/or use the specific elements of the crime cited in the warrant or PC 602.1. The only

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION 1

 1 subsection applicable to private events rather than public agencies in PC 602.1 is 602.1(a).
2 The State of California has had 1 ½ years after the March 2019 event to gather evidence,

3 comply with Brady disclosures, access police bodycam footage, interview witnesses, and so on.
4 However, the DA’s Office did not respond to a letter sent certified mail in July 2020 requesting
5 preservation of evidence until September 21, 2020, nor did it respond to multiple telephone
6 voicemails. In short, despite multiple attempts to contact the DA’s Office to meet and confer, the
7 DA’s Office only deigned to contact Defendant approximately a year and a half after the alleged
8 violation and months after receiving a letter in which Defendant requested preservation of
9 evidence, listed specific and concise discovery categories, and summarized numerous
10 deficiencies in the government’s allegations.
11 Given the DA’s deliberate or grossly negligent delay in contacting Defendant and
12 disclosing evidence, the DA’s office should not be permitted to “move goalposts” so close to the
13 trial date in a way that contradicts the judge’s basis for the signed warrant.
14 The only relevant Judicial Council jury instruction that appears to apply to this case is
15 number 2930, Trespass: To Interfere With Business (Pen. Code, § 602(k)) [online version from
16 2017]. I have copied the version below, then modified it. This is the only form jury instruction
17 from the Judicial Council that uses the required elements listed in the warrant.
18 JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM JURY INSTRUCTION
19 2930.Trespass: To Interfere With Business (Pen. Code, § 602(k)

20 The defendant is charged [in Count] with trespassing [in violation of Penal Code section 602(k)].

21 To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

22 1. The defendant willfully entered (land/ [or] a building) belonging to someone else;

23 2. When the defendant entered, (he/she) intended (to damage someone else’s property [or
property right]/ [or] to interfere with, obstruct, or damage a lawful business or occupation
24
carried on by the (owner of the land[,]/ [or] owner’s agent[,]/[or] person in lawful possession of
25
the land)); AND
26
3. The defendant actually did (damage someone else’s property [or property right]/ [or] interfere
27
with, obstruct, or damage a lawful business or occupation carried on by the (owner of the
28

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION 2

 1 land[,]/[or] owner’s agent[,]/ [or] person in lawful possession of the land)). Someone commits an

2 act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose.

3 BENCH NOTES

4 The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime. The

5 statute uses the term “injure.” (Pen. Code, § 602(k).) The committee has replaced the word
“injure” with the word “damage” because the word “injure” generally refers to harm to a person
6
rather than to property.
7
AUTHORITY• Elements. Pen. Code, § 602(k).•Willfully Defined. Pen. Code, § 7(1); People v.
8
Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402].• Actual Damage Required. In re
9
Wallace (1970) 3 Cal.3d 289, 295
10
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION
11
The defendant is charged in Count 1 with violating Penal Code 602.1(a). To prove that the
12
defendant is guilty of this crime, the State of California must prove all the following:
13
1. The defendant willfully entered land or a building belonging to someone else;
14
2. Defendant intended to interfere with, obstruct, or damage a lawful business or occupation
15 carried on by the owner of the land or building; AND
16 3. The defendant actually did interfere with, obstruct, or damage a lawful business or
17 occupation carried on by the owner of the land or building.
18 4. Someone commits an act intentionally when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. The
19 government must prove Defendant acted intentionally with respect to any alleged interference
20 and/or obstruction.

21 5. In this case, the “lawful business” carried on by the owner of the building relates to a

22 basketball game at SAP Arena, a private entity.

23
24 Dated: October 1, 2020
By:
25 MATTHEW RAFAT
PRO PER
26
27
28

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION 3