Can a jury reasonably conclude that defendant acted with the requisite intent to make a threat against a woman?

Second, a jury could reasonably conclude, despite any evidence of mental illness or intoxication, that defendant acted with the requisite intent. (See People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ["evidence of voluntary intoxication is relevant to the extent it bears upon the question whether the defendant actually had the requisite specific mental state required for commission of the crimes at issue"].) On at least three separate occasions, defendant specifically targeted the victim. During the charged incident, defendant did not approach the victim until after her husband had left. And when defendant saw the husband returning, he immediately walked away. From this evidence, a jury could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt and the ability to form specific intent to have his words taken as a threat.

Page 7

Substantial evidence supports the criminal threats conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.