What is the legal test for making a threat under section 422 of the California Criminal Code?

When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of appeal, the reviewing court "must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054, citing People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) Applying this standard, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts.

To prove a violation of section 422, the prosecution must establish: "(1) that the defendant `willfully threaten[ed] to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person,' (2) that the defendant made the threat `with the specific intent that the statement . . . is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,' (3) that the threat which may be `made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device' was `on its face and under the circumstances in which it [was] made, . . . so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,' (4) that the threat actually caused the person threatened `to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety,' and (5) that the threatened person's fear was "reasonabl[e]" under the circumstances.' [Citation.]" (People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227-228.) "`While the statute does not require that the violator intend to cause death or serious bodily injury to the victim, not all serious injuries are suffered to the body. The knowing infliction of mental terror is equally deserving of moral condemnation.' [Citation.]" (People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1024, italics omitted.) An ambiguous statement may provide the basis for a violation of section 422. "`[T]he determination whether a defendant intended his . . . words to be taken as a threat, and whether the words were sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific that they conveyed to the victim an immediacy of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat can be based on all the surrounding circumstances and not just on the words alone. The parties' history can also be considered as one of the relevant circumstances. [Citations.]'" (People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 753-754.)