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

"In order to prove a violation of section 422, the prosecution must establish all of the following: (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." (People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227-228.)

Where the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence. (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is "reasonable, credible and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (Ibid.) From the evidence, we draw all inferences supporting the jury's verdict. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1382.)

Here, substantial evidence supports the verdict as to elements two and three.

Regarding element two, the specific intent element, evidence of a defendant's state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial. (People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208.) The determination whether a defendant intended his or her words to be taken as a threat can be based on all of the surrounding circumstances and not just the words used.

Page 4

(People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 754.) In an analogous case, the court found evidence of the intent element of section 422 to be "overwhelming and uncontradicted" when a defendant shouted, "I'm going to kill you, you son of a bitch" while trying to batter down the victim's front door and smash his front window. (People v. Teal (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 277, 281.)