California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Malik, 16 Cal.App.5th 587, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 435 (Cal. App. 2017):
it out, (3) that the threatwhich may be made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication devicewas 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, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 26 P.3d 1051.) While this crime does require a specific intent the threat is to be taken as such, defendant's defense to this crime was not that he lacked the intent to threaten, but that he did not utter the threat at all. Again, resolution of this question did not turn on Dr. Barnard's PTSD diagnosis, but on whether the jury believed the victim or defendant.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.