Opinion
C095415
11-16-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDAL BRENT LUCAS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 62170069
RENNER, J.
During a confrontation with staff at a pain management clinic, defendant Randal Lucas donned metal knuckles and threatened to kill staff members. A jury found him guilty of two counts of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)), one count of attempted criminal threats (§§ 664/422, subd. (a)), and one count of possession of a deadly weapon, metal knuckles (§ 21810). The jury found true enhancement allegations that he personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the criminal threats and attempted criminal threats offenses (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). On appeal, defendant contends: (1) there is not substantial evidence to support either the criminal threats or attempted criminal threats convictions; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his request for a self-defense instruction. We will affirm the judgment.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I. BACKGROUND
As a result of various injuries sustained during his work as a miner, defendant was a patient of an outpatient pain management clinic. He generally went to the clinic once a month to get his prescriptions filled. Over the years, defendant saw a number of providers at the clinic, including Dorothy and A.K. Defendant was not one of A.K.'s regular patients, but she had consulted with him previously. Defendant testified that in past consultations he had problems with A.K., which sometimes required him to request a different provider. He preferred to meet with Dorothy.
At defendant's November 2019 visit to the clinic, the medical assistant, Josh, took defendant's vitals. Defendant then met with A.K. in her office. The office was small. Defendant was seated in a chair and A.K. was seated behind the desk. Their discussion started calmly, and then defendant got frustrated and started yelling, complaining that no healthcare providers were listening to him. From the next room, Josh could hear defendant screaming at A.K. through the walls of the office. Josh went to the office because of the conflict between A.K. and defendant.
A.K. and Josh's testimony differed on Josh coming to the office. Josh testified he went to the office because of the yelling, and A.K. testified she left the office and asked Josh to call the manager and Josh returned to the office with her.
Josh told defendant he could not yell in the office. Defendant answered by yelling more loudly, and Josh responded by yelling even louder. Josh also told defendant law enforcement had been called.
Defendant took metal knuckles from his pants pocket and put them on his right hand. He held the knuckles in his fist, brandished them and said, "I will kill you. I will kill you all." Other staff members, Erik and Herbie, heard the yelling and ran to the office. Josh testified that while he was interacting with defendant, he stayed in the doorway of the office with his hands behind his back and did not go inside the office or threaten defendant. When Josh heard defendant threaten to kill A.K. and "everybody" and saw defendant putting on metal knuckles, he thought defendant was "prepared for violence" and braced himself for an assault. Josh feared for his life.
Erik, a physician's assistant at the clinic, heard a man's voice yelling. The man sounded very angry, loud, and intense. It was alarming. Erik described the yelling as having a "certain ferocity and heightened energy" that alerted him to danger. He heard profanity and a person say, "I will kill you." He did not recognize the voice, but it was not one of his coworkers. He ran down the hall to A.K.'s office.
Erik heard defendant threaten to kill Josh and saw defendant with his right arm "cocked back in an about-to-punch position holding brass knuckles." He was pointing at Josh and swearing. When he heard the threat, Erik was worried for everyone's safety. Erik testified defendant and Josh had stepped towards each other and were only a few feet apart. Erik pulled Josh back, as Josh and defendant appeared to be amplifying each other's anger, and he thought they were going to fight. Erik took defendant's threats seriously, felt intimidated, and thought he was in danger.
A.K. was in the corner of the office distressed, crying, and afraid defendant would hit her. She was frozen in place. Erik repeatedly told defendant to move to the wall so A.K. could get past him and out of the office. Erik tried to deescalate the situation and told defendant no one was going to touch him. When defendant finally complied with Erik's directives, A.K. rushed out of the office.
After A.K. left the office, Erik continued to talk with defendant. Herbie, another medical assistant at the clinic, also responded to the commotion. He arrived at A.K.'s office and leaned against the doorway. Herbie's arrival seemed to trigger defendant. Defendant pointed at Herbie, noted he had metal knuckles on and would "punch [Herbie] out," and threatened to kill him. Defendant, wearing the metal knuckles and with his fist cocked back, pointed at Erik and threatened to kill him and kill them all. At this point, Dorothy arrived and spoke with defendant. Erik left and went to the lobby.
Until Dorothy arrived, no other staff members went into the office. They stayed in the doorway or hallway. All of the staff members were smaller than defendant. A.K. is five feet five inches tall and, at the time, probably weighed 105 to 110 pounds. Josh is five feet nine inches tall and weighs 175 pounds. Erik is five feet 10 inches tall and weighs 180 pounds. Herbie is six feet one inches tall and weighed approximately 240 pounds. Defendant is six feet two inches tall and weighs approximately 290 pounds.
When police officers took A.K.'s statement, approximately 10 minutes after they arrived, she was very afraid, crying, and shaking. She was unable to finish work that day and unable to drive herself home because she was in shock.
Josh felt defendant was threatening and prepared for violence, and Josh was afraid when defendant threatened to kill them. After Erik pulled Josh out of the doorway of the office, he calmed down and left the office area. Josh was "rattled" and stressed by the whole incident. He had been frightened for his safety, and the stress of that fear affected him for weeks after the incident. He had to take time off work because he was afraid defendant would return and it would happen again.
Herbie was a little frightened, at first, and concerned for everyone's safety. Herbie saw defendant make a fist with the metal knuckles on and draw his fist back. Herbie perceived defendant's actions as though to say, "don't get near me . . . or else I'll punch you." But, Herbie also thought defendant was going to charge the staff members and he was concerned for his and other staff members' safety. Herbie recognized the metal knuckles as a weapon that would cause injury. After the police officers arrived, Herbie left the office area.
Erik was very shaken up by the whole incident. He felt he had to put himself in harm's way with defendant; a physically intimidating person who was very upset and armed with a dangerous weapon.
Defendant testified he had previously had problems when seen by A.K. and had asked not to be seen by her. Shortly after A.K. arrived in the office, she was "prattling on about something," and he decided to leave, but Josh was blocking the doorway. He and A.K. both raised their voices and defendant was also arguing with Josh. He testified A.K. was not a physically intimidating person and presented no physical threat. After Josh blocked him from leaving the office, the situation escalated. He and Josh argued loudly. A.K. went back and forth from the office repeatedly. Once she returned with Erik, "things really came uncorked."
Erik was standing in the hallway behind everyone and repeatedly screaming, "You're going to murder me" at the top of his lungs. When Erik was yelling, defendant had the metal knuckles in his hand. Defendant told Erik and Josh to back up and that they would regret it if they attacked him. He wanted them to back up so he could leave. But, he was not afraid. If he had been afraid, he would have pulled out his knife to defend himself. He was, however, concerned that Josh would attack him and believed bringing out his metal knuckles presented an image "that would make him think twice." Defendant claimed he did not take the metal knuckles out until Erik showed up and denied he ever threatened to kill anyone.
Josh never left the doorway and did not enter the office. Defendant denied having any conversation with Erik or ever having seen Herbie before. When Dorothy came into the office, defendant sat and talked with her until the police officers arrived. He was calm when speaking with Dorothy. He did not resist the police officers.
Roseville Police Department Officer Coghlan responded within minutes to a call that a patient of the pain clinic was threatening staff with brass knuckles. When he arrived, he heard defendant shouting and saw a female member of the staff trying to calm him down, and there were a number of other staff members in the area. The office was very small, and defendant was very angry and very large, so Coghlan tried to deescalate the situation. Defendant told Coghlan he wanted to cooperate, but he did not comply with Coghlan's instructions. Another officer arrived. Defendant remained agitated and yelled at the officers. The officers decided to detain defendant in handcuffs while they investigated. Defendant resisted being handcuffed, so the officers had to use additional force. After he was handcuffed, defendant calmed down, and although he was agitated, he was not fighting with the officers. As officers removed defendant from the scene to take him to jail, he was not fighting against the officers but continued to be aggressive and intimidating, yelling and directing profanity to the staff. In a search of defendant, the officers found a pocketknife, window punch, and metal knuckles.
The People charged defendant with making criminal threats against A.K. and Josh (§ 422, subd. (a)-counts one and three), one count of attempted criminal threats against Herbie (§§ 664/422, subd. (a)-count two), and one count of possession of a deadly weapon, metal knuckles (§ 21810-count four). As to the criminal threats and attempted criminal threats, the prosecution also alleged defendant had personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). A jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found the enhancement allegations true. The trial court found defendant had overcome the presumption he was ineligible for probation and sentenced defendant to two years' formal probation.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his criminal threats and attempted criminal threats convictions. While defendant acknowledges he said he would kill the staff members, he claims his words were "merely angry utterances"; his physical actions were defensive and inconsistent with an intent to act on those words or convey a real threat; and there was no evidence the victims were in sustained fear.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is credible, reasonable, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in support of the trier of fact's determination. (People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 350.) The judgment cannot be set aside unless it clearly appears that under no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient evidence to support it. (People v. Clark (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 235, 242.)
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.) To establish an attempted criminal threat, the defendant must have the specific intent to make a criminal threat, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. (People v. Chandler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 508, 516.) In most instances, that will mean the defendant has engaged in all of the conduct supporting a conviction for criminal threats, but the crime is not completed because, for example, the victim does not understand the threat or suffer sustained fear. (People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 233-234.)
In determining whether a particular threat is a criminal threat, we consider all of the circumstances surrounding the threat, including the words used, the manner in which the communication is made, the prior relationship of the parties, and the actions of the accused after communicating the threat. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 860.) Section 422 is not intended to punish an angry utterance or emotional outburst unless it otherwise qualifies as a threat under the statute. (In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1141; People v. Felix (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905, 913 (Felix); People v. Teal (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 (Teal).) Sustained fear is a fear over a period of time" 'that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory.'" (In re Ricky T., supra, at p. 1140.)
Defendant and A.K. had a prior history of difficult encounters at the clinic. Defendant had previously indicated he did not want to be treated by A.K. and reiterated that request on the day of this incident. He and A.K. were in a small office and the hallway leading to the office was narrow. During this meeting, defendant got frustrated with A.K. and began yelling loudly at her. He stood between A.K. and the doorway, armed himself with metal knuckles, and threatened to kill her. As additional staff members arrived in response to the commotion, including Josh and Herbie, defendant repeatedly threatened to kill each of them while brandishing his metal knuckles and drawing back his fist as though to hit them. Defendant was larger than any of the responding staff members, including A.K., Josh, and Herbie.
Defendant's explicit threats to kill A.K., Josh, and Herbie while armed with a weapon were unequivocal, unconditional, and immediate threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury. His proximity to the victims, imposing size advantage, and threatening gestures added gravity to his words and an immediate prospect of execution. (People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348.) The jury could also reasonably infer from defendant's explicit words repeatedly threatening to kill all of the staff members, while displaying a weapon and making threatening gestures, that these statements were made with the specific intent that they be taken as a threat. (Ibid.)
During the dispute, A.K. was distressed, crying, and afraid defendant would hit her. As a result of her fear, she was frozen in place in the office, until Erik orchestrated her exit. Approximately 10 minutes later, when officers took her statement, A.K. was still afraid, crying, and shaking. She was so upset she could not finish work that day and could not drive herself home. Josh was frightened by defendant's threats and that fear affected him for weeks after the incident and required him to take time off work. This evidence satisfied the requirement that they be in sustained fear. (People v. Fierro, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1348-1349 [fear lasting through the one-minute confrontation during which the defendant displayed a weapon and for up to 15 minutes after the incident when the victim had reached a safe place was reasonable sustained fear]; People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 951-952 [death threat from disgruntled customer who was not allowed to obtain prescribed pain medication induced reasonable sustained fear].)
Defendant claims his statements were "nothing more than angry raving or utterances that do not fall within the statute." We agree that section 422 is not intended to punish emotional outbursts. (Felix, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 913.) Thus, a person may make such statements in private or in what they believe to be a privileged conversation and not be subject to a section 422 sanction. That is because the threat was not received by the intended victim or intended to be conveyed to the victim. (Ibid.; Teal, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 281.) Here, while in a confrontation with multiple staff members, defendant repeatedly threatened to kill them, drew his fist back as though to punch them, and brandished the metal knuckles at them. This was not a threat made in a private setting in which defendant did not expect the intended victims to know of the threats. To the contrary, defendant intended the statements to be heard and taken seriously. The fact that defendant was angry and emotional when he made the threats does not relieve him of liability if the threat was received and induced sustained fear, as defendant's threats did. (Teal, supra, at p. 281.)
There was substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict as to each element of making criminal threats to A.K. and Josh. There was also substantial evidence as to each element of making criminal threats as to Herbie, except he did not suffer sustained fear; thus, there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict of attempted criminal threats as to Herbie.
B. Self-Defense Instruction
Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to grant his request to instruct the jury on self-defense. He claims there was sufficient evidence to support the instruction, as there was evidence he was in a defensive posture and felt threatened by staff members. The People respond that no published case has held that self-defense applies to criminal threats and the evidence does not support giving the instruction as there is no evidence the staff members were about to inflict serious bodily harm on defendant.
The parties have not cited, and we have not independently found, any published authority holding that self-defense is an affirmative defense to making criminal threats. For purposes of this opinion, we will assume without deciding that self-defense applies to making criminal threats.
"In a criminal case, a trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence." (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 885.) "Included within this duty is the '. . . obligation to instruct on defenses, . . . and on the relationship of these defenses to the elements of the charged offense . . .' where '. . . it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense.'" (People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133, 140.) In this context, substantial evidence to support a defense instruction is "evidence sufficient to 'deserve consideration by the jury,' not 'whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.'" (People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 361, italics omitted; People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 369.) "In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether 'there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982.)" '"' "The fact that the evidence may not be of a character to inspire belief does not authorize the refusal of an instruction based thereon." '" [Citation.] As an obvious corollary, if the evidence is minimal and insubstantial the court need not instruct on its effects.'" (People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 824.) The court is not obliged to instruct on theories that have no evidentiary support. (Id. at p. 823.) We review the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction de novo. (People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089, overruled on different point by People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.)
" 'To justify an act of self-defense[,] . . . the defendant must have an honest and reasonable belief that bodily injury is about to be inflicted on him. [Citation.]' [Citation.] The threat of bodily injury must be imminent [citation], and '. . . any right of self-defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.'" (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064-1065, italics omitted.) The defendant's belief in the need to act in self-defense must be objectively reasonable as determined from the point of view of a reasonable person. (Id. at p. 1065; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082-1083.)
The evidence that defendant threatened to kill A.K. and Josh and attempted to threaten Herbie, as a means of self-defense against imminent bodily injury was extremely weak, if not altogether insufficient. Viewing the evidence most favorably to defendant (People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137), Josh stepped into the office, he and defendant were yelling at each other, and it appeared they were going to fight. Staff members were standing in the doorway and the hallway. No other staff member entered the office. No staff member verbally threatened defendant or made any threatening gestures toward defendant. The staff members were all significantly smaller than defendant and unarmed. Nothing in this incident suggests a reasonable person would believe they were at risk of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
Similarly, there was a dearth of evidence that defendant made the threats because he actually believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 82.) Herbie testified that he perceived defendant's actions of drawing his fist back as a defensive move to prevent anyone from coming near him. Defendant testified that because he thought Josh, who was five inches shorter and over 100 pounds lighter than defendant, might attack him, he took out his metal knuckles to present an image that would deter Josh. While this was some evidence that defendant's actions were self-protective, it was not evidence defendant actually believed he was at imminent risk of death or great bodily injury. Defendant's testimony refutes such a claim. Defendant testified repeatedly he was not afraid during the confrontations. If he had been afraid, he would have drawn his knife. He explicitly stated A.K. was not physically intimidating and presented no physical threat. Defendant also denied he made any threat to kill anyone. Nothing in his testimony would support a conclusion he made the threats to kill all of the staff members because he believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
Citing only to Herbie's testimony, defendant claims "several witnesses" noted defendant's defensive demeanor. The record does not support this assertion.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to a claim of self-defense, there was not sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to instruct the jury on selfdefense.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DUARTE, Acting P. J., HOCH, J.