How have courts considered gang membership and violent history in assessing the sufficiency of a threat under section 422 of the Criminal Code?

Defendant, however, emphasizes that he could not independently carry out the threat. Defendant ignores the significance of his gang connections and violent history. As explained in People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333, "the determination whether a defendant intended his words to be taken as a threat, and whether the words were sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific [as to convey] to the victim an immediacy of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat can be based on all surrounding circumstances and not just on the words alone. The parties' history can also be considered as one of the relevant circumstances." (Id. at p. 1340 [considering gang membership and the defendant and victim's prior relationship to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence].)

Here, based on Doe's knowledge of defendant's high-ranking gang status and violent history, it is more than reasonable that defendant's threat "conveyed to [Doe] an immediacy of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat . . . based on all the surrounding circumstances." (Mendoza, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1340.) Doe's actions after defendant's threat showed that Doe perceived an immediacy of threat in that he had his home address flagged for protection, had his children sleep in his bedroom, and inquired about his wife being able to carry a concealed firearm. Moreover, although section 422 requires an immediate prospect of execution, it "does not require an immediate ability to carry out the threat." (People v. Lopez (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 675, 679.)

Page 10