Opinion
A102521.
11-20-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDALL BLAINE PIERCE, Defendant and Appellant.
The trial court found that appellant Randall Blaine Pierce committed battery and made threats against his fiancée, in violation of the terms of his probation prohibiting criminal acts. (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243, subd. (e), 422.) The court revoked appellants probation, and sentenced him to prison for two years on his underlying offense of failure to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (f).) Appellant contends that the evidence fails to establish that he committed the crimes for which probation was revoked. We reject the contention and affirm the judgment.
facts
Appellant had a "heated argument" with his fiancée, Margarita Serrano between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. on February 22, 2003 at the San Bruno home of Serranos sister. Serranos adult son called the police the following day and reported the argument. The investigating police officer testified that he interviewed Serrano and Serranos sister and brother-in-law, who witnessed the argument. Serranos brother-in-law told the officer that appellant purposely spit in Serranos face, and threatened that if she "left [appellant] again, that he would snap her neck and paralyze her." The brother-in-law said that the threat was made towards Serrano during appellants argument with her. When the officer interviewed Serrano, she told him that she "was afraid because [appellant] was yelling [and] that she was so distraught that she couldnt remember exactly what he said, but that she was very afraid and having an anxiety attack and upset." The officer interviewed Serrano four days after the argument, and Serrano said that she was "so upset that she still could not go to work" and had to go to the doctor. Serranos sister told the officer that she feared for Serranos safety.
Serrano and her family provided a different version of the argument at the probation revocation hearing. Serrano testified that appellants saliva hit her on the face and shoulders, but said that appellant has a history of Tourettes syndrome that causes involuntary spitting. Serrano also denied that appellant ever threatened her with physical harm. Serranos brother-in-law testified that spit was coming out of appellants mouth because he was screaming, not because he was directing spit at Serrano. The brother-in-laws testimony concerning the threat was somewhat confused. The brother-in-law testified that appellant told Serrano: " `You make me feel like leaving you. You make me hate you. You make me feel like snapping your neck. " On cross-examination, the brother-in-law was asked if appellant spoke directly to Serrano or if appellant conveyed these feelings to the brother-in-law outside her presence. The answer was not fully responsive and left the issue unsettled. Under further cross-examination, the brother-in-law did say that he and appellant were "outside" when appellant told him: "`she makes me feel like breaking or snapping her neck. " Also, Serranos sister testified that the statement about snapping Serranos neck was made to the brother-in-law outside, after the argument was over.
discussion
Appellant argues that there was insufficient proof of an intentional battery or a criminal threat against Serrano. The proof of facts supporting the revocation of probation requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Rodriquez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447.) The evidence here readily meets that standard. The investigating police officer recalled the eyewitness observations of Serranos brother-in-law that appellant purposely spit in Serranos face (battery) and told her that he would snap her neck (criminal threat). Appellant argues that no battery occurred because his spitting was unintentional, as supported by Serranos testimony. Appellant also points to testimony that the threat was not made directly to Serrano. The record does contain conflicting accounts of appellants argument with Serrano, but resolution of those conflicts rested with the trial court. Where, as here, the circumstances reasonably justify the trial courts findings, the fact that the circumstances might also justify a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, Acting P.J., Rivera, J.