There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for stalking where appellant repeatedly contacted his wife in person and by telephone in violation of a restraining order and made various express or implied threats against her, and where there was evidence that the wife was tormented and terrorized by the conduct. No unanimity instruction was required because the statutory offense required a course of conduct occurring over a period of time. The court also properly rejected Zavala’s proposed instruction that the prosecution had to prove that the victim feared death or great bodily injury, because the proferred instruction was legally incorrect. Statutory amendments have removed the requirement that the threat be against the life of or threaten great bodily injury to the target of the offense.