What is the test for "use" of a deadly weapon in the commission of criminal threats?

Defendant contends that the evidence does not support the conclusion that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of criminal threats. We review such a contention under the same standard described above in footnote 3. (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806.)

"Use" of a deadly weapon in the commission of an offense is broadly construed to further the legislative intent of deterring the use of such weapons. (People v. Masbruch (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1001, 1007.) Accordingly, "use" includes any intentional display of a deadly weapon that facilitates the commission of the offense. (Id. at pp. 1008-1009.) The commission of the crime of criminal threats requires the willful threat "to commit a

Page 7

crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is 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, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety." ( 422, subd. (a).) The intentional display of a deadly weapon can facilitate the commission of the offense by conveying to the victim "a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat." (Ibid.) The weapon need not be displayed continuously during the commission of an offense or series of offenses. It is sufficient if the initial display of the weapon facilitated the commission of the offense because it caused the victim not to resist or put the victim in a state of fear required as an element of the offense. (People v. Masbruch, at pp. 1007-1009.)