Opinion
C081900
02-27-2017
In re I.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.J., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JV137625)
The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging three violations, including criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), by the minor I.J. On appeal, the minor challenges only the criminal threats violation. He contends insufficient evidence supported the finding of the violation. He reasons there was insufficient evidence that he intended that his threats be communicated to the victim. We disagree and affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
We discuss only the facts relevant to the challenged criminal threats violation.
The minor is a 17-year-old high school student. The day of the incident, the victim, a campus monitor, was told to go to the principal's office to escort the minor to the discipline room—a trip of about 30 feet. The victim arrived to see the minor arguing with the principal. She tried to get the minor to come with her. When the minor refused, she mentioned that just that morning she had caught the minor off campus without permission. The minor was not happy to have that raised in front of the principal.
When the minor eventually left the principal's office, he was aggravated. The victim asked how he expected to get a job with his attitude and behavior. He said, "I already have a job." She replied, "[I]f you do, that's great, but in order to keep it, you got to change the negative attitude." He started cursing her: "[F]uck you bitch." She responded: "[O]kay, you know what, I don't value the opinion of . . . young little boys like yourself. So I'm going to need you to go sit in [the discipline room] and sit there."
The minor then said to the victim, "I'll fuck you up." He also mentioned the letter "B," which the victim took to mean Bloods. She knew the minor was affiliated with a gang.
After escorting the minor to the discipline room, the victim returned to her stationed post at the school's front parking lot. She was not yet concerned for her safety.
Around lunchtime, a different monitor received a radio message that the minor had been suspended and needed to be escorted off campus. The monitor found the minor in the back of campus.
He approached the minor and asked him to leave campus. The minor was upset and highly agitated. He said he wanted to confront the "bitch" posted out front. The monitor understood him to mean the victim.
The monitor told him to calm down and just leave campus, but the minor was not listening. The minor started walking toward the victim's post at the front of school, saying he would "smack the shit out of her." He told the monitor to keep his distance and leave him alone.
A police officer, assigned to the school, was also radioed and went to find the minor. When he found the minor, the minor walked right past him, going very fast. The officer saw the minor's fists were clenched. The officer followed the minor, along with the monitor, who was also in pursuit.
As he followed the minor, the monitor radioed the victim that the minor was en route to her post; she needed to go to the back of the school to avoid a confrontation. He told her there had been an interaction with the minor and the monitor was concerned for her safety. At this point, the victim became afraid.
The minor barreled through the crowed hallway. With two hands, he pushed or bumped a couple of students in his way. A group of 25 to 30 kids followed him.
When the minor reached the victim's post, he said, "[W]here is that [bitch], I'm looking for her." The monitor told him to calm down and that it wasn't worth it. The minor said he "didn't give a fuck." The monitor replied, "[Y]ou do care." The minor told him to back away, threatening that the monitor "could get it too."
At that point, the officer and a vice principal arrived, and the monitor was told to control the crowd. The monitor did not hear what transpired after that.
The officer and the vice principal tried to calm the minor down. The minor then told the vice principal to quit talking to him and "Get the fuck out of my face, bitch-ass nigga. Tell that punk-ass monitor to come out here," and "I put that on FAB." The officer understood FAB to refer to the Fourth Avenue Bloods, a gang the minor was associated with.
When the officer tried to give the minor a cell phone to speak with his mother, the minor refused, saying if she came to get him he was "still going to come back up here again and look for [the victim] again."
The minor was again told to leave campus, but he continued to curse the vice principal and officer. After the officer told the minor he would be arrested if he did not leave, the minor refused, and the officer arrested him. Before being put in the police car, the minor said, "I'll be back."
After the arrest, the officer interviewed the victim. At some point, she asked the officer what she could do to protect herself.
After the incident, the monitor had a debriefing with the victim, the vice principal, and other campus monitors. The monitor told the victim she had been moved to avoid a bigger incident. The monitor also told the victim what he had heard the minor say. He added that he was "very surprised" at how the minor had turned on him; he had never been threatened by him before. At the debriefing, the victim was "upset" and "stressed out."
The victim testified the monitor told her that the minor had said he was going to get some girls to get the victim. The monitor denied saying or hearing that. --------
The monitor switched posts with the victim for the rest of the day. For a couple of days, the victim was afraid the minor would come back for her. When the minor returned to school, after the five-day suspension, he ignored her, and the victim did not feel the same concern anymore.
The trial court sustained the petition as to all three counts, including criminal threats. It elected to sustain the criminal threats count as a misdemeanor.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the minor contends insubstantial evidence supports the finding of a section 422 criminal threats violation. He argues there was insufficient evidence he intended that the threat be communicated to the victim. He reasons that his threats spoken to the victim cannot form the basis of a criminal threats violation because the victim was not then afraid of him. And there is no evidence or inference he wanted the monitor to communicate the threats to the victim. We disagree.
To establish criminal threats under section 422, the prosecution must prove: (1) the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime causing death or great bodily injury to the victim; (2) the threat was made with specific intent that it be taken as a threat—even absent intent to carry out the threat; (3) the threat was, on its face and under the circumstances, " ' "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific" ' " as to convey to the victim " ' "a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat" ' "; (4) the threat caused the victim to be in sustained fear for his or her safety; and (5) the fear was reasonable under the circumstances. (In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 630.)
Here, substantial evidence supports the finding of the violation. The minor's threats spoken to the victim can indeed form the basis of a criminal threats violation—even if the victim was not yet afraid. A statement not initially considered a threat can later be seen that way based on the defendant's subsequent actions. (People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1014; People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1341 [After the threat, fellow gang members parked in front of the victim's home, and gang members put out the word they were looking for the victim].) Here the minor's initial threats to the victim ("I'll fuck you up," and the Bloods reference) took on a more serious nature when combined with his subsequent actions.
Additionally, there is substantial evidence the minor intended his subsequent threats be communicated to the victim. To be sure, section 422 "is not violated by mere angry utterances or ranting soliloquies, however violent." (People v. Teal (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 277, 281.) Privately cursing one's enemies, pummeling pillows, and shouting for revenge is safe from section 422's sanction. (Teal, at p. 281.) But "if one broadcasts a threat intending to induce sustained fear, section 422 is violated if the threat is received and induces sustained fear—whether or not the threatener knows his threat has hit its mark." (Ibid.)
And here the minor broadcasted his threats intending to induce fear. In front of the monitor—and eventually in front of a police officer, a vice principal, and a crowd of 25 to 30 students—the minor expressed his threats, saying that he would "smack the shit out of [the victim]", that he wanted to confront the bitch posted out front, "[t]ell that punk-ass monitor to come out here", and that he was "still going to come back up here again and look for [the victim] again." Whether or not the minor specifically intended or contemplated that the monitor would communicate his threats to the victim, the minor broadcasted his threats to the victim, for all to hear, intending to induce fear.
Finally, the minor's reliance on In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132 is inapposite. There, an angry teen cursed his teacher who had locked him out of the classroom and then while opening the door, hit the teen with the door. (Id. at p. 1135.) The teen threatened the teacher saying, "I'm going to get you," and "I'm going to kick your ass." (Id. at pp. 1135-1136.) Reversing the judgment, the appellate court explained that threats are judged in their context. (Id. at p. 1137.) The teen's threats lacked credibility, and there was no immediacy to them: the police were not called until the following day, and the police did not interview the teen until a week later. (Id. at pp. 1137-1138.) And with no circumstances occurring after the threats, to further a finding of a terrorist threat, the remark "I'm going to get you," was ambiguous and "no more than a vague threat of retaliation without prospect of execution." (Id. at pp. 1138-1139.)
Here, however, the circumstances corroborated an immediate threat. The minor followed his threats with actions showing the prospect of execution: he barreled toward the victim's post, continuing to make threats, and he expressed anger and frustration when he discovered the victim was gone. Indeed his actions were considered serious enough to radio the victim to immediately leave her post.
Substantial evidence supports the finding of a violation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
RAYE, P. J. We concur: HULL, J. DUARTE, J.