What is the test for making threats against Deputy First Minister of the State of California?

We also reject defendant's claim that his threats against Deputy Crisp were protected speech under the First Amendment. "`As long as the threat reasonably appears to be a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm [citation] and its circumstances are such that there is a reasonable tendency to produce in the victim a fear that the threat will be carried out,' a statute proscribing such threats `is not unconstitutional for lacking a requirement of immediacy or imminence.'" (People v. Hines, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1061, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388, quoting In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698, 714, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 355, 896 P.2d 1365.)