Filed 8/23/22 P. v. Zinman CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B313764

(Super. Ct. No. 2021001112)

(Ventura County)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION 

AND DENYING REHEARING

(NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT)

THE COURT:

The opinion filed in the above-entitled matter on August 4, 

2022, is modified as follows:

On page 5, the first sentence of the third paragraph

beginning “Three days later” is modified to state:

Three days later, Breana’s parents were at home with her 

brother when Cheryl noticed that someone appeared to be 

lingering at the front door.

This modification does not change the judgment. 

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

____________________________________________________________

GILBERT, P.J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.
Filed 8/4/22 P. v. Zinman CA2/6 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B313764

(Super. Ct. No. 2021001112)

(Ventura County)

Justin Marcus Zinman appeals the judgment entered after 

a jury convicted him of making criminal threats (Pen. Code,

1

§ 422) and stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). The jury also found true 

allegations that appellant had a prior serious felony conviction 

that also qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1), & 

(e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (a)(1) & (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced 

him to 11 years in state prison. Appellant contends that his 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

criminal threats conviction must be reversed for insufficient 

evidence. We affirm.2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2017, appellant and Breana H. met while working at the 

Kohl’s store in Simi Valley and subsequently entered into a 

romantic relationship. Following his graduation from college in 

the summer of 2019, appellant began living with Breana and her 

parents at their home in Simi Valley. After appellant moved in, 

he became preoccupied with religion and obsessed with

government conspiracy theories. He told Breana that she lived in 

a “matriarchal” household and needed to leave. 

Appellant and Breana’s relationship ended in July or 

August of 2019, but they continued speaking intermittently until 

appellant moved away in December 2019. Breana eventually told 

appellant she was afraid of his behavior and wanted no further 

contact with him.

In August or September of 2020, appellant sent Breana an

email to which she did not respond. Appellant subsequently sent 

Breana an Instagram message followed by text messages and 

phone calls from an Idaho number. Appellant texted that his 

“next step is to call your mom” to tell her that he planned to 

marry Breana and was “a worthy husband.”

Breana did not respond to the Instagram message or phone 

calls, but eventually responded to the texts by telling appellant to 

stop texting her and that she would call him the next day when 

she was not at work. The following morning, appellant texted: 

“Have fun working in the most corrupt failing, work 

2 Appellant has also challenged the judgement in a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus, which we deny in a separate order.
3

establishment. And, by the way, outside California people know 

this pandemic is fake . . . . Trump 2020 Landslide.” 

On September 21, 2020, appellant sent Breana a text 

message accusing her of having a sexual relationship with his 

friend Tom. Appellant referred to Tom as a liar and alcoholic 

who “beat the shit out of” his girlfriends and told Breana 

“[m]aybe you two are perfect for each other.” Although Breana 

had never met Tom in person, he had previously reached out to 

her about appellant. 

By December 2020, Breana was receiving emails from 

appellant almost every day. In a December 13 email, appellant 

stated: “I had to do what I had to do to infiltrate you and your 

matriarchal household and family. . . . I will be returning to take 

you. . . . You are a property of me [sic]. Whether your family 

likes it or not, I will deal with them. . . . I will challenge your dad 

to a gentleman’s dual [sic] if I have to. Maybe that will wake up 

the man in him, too, so he can start fucking your mom properly 

and chill her out.” That same day, appellant sent another email 

message stating he could “take care” of Breana’s grandmother, 

whom he called a “witch.”

Five days later, appellant sent Breanna’s mother Cheryl a 

text message stating that he was giving Breana “a taste of her 

own medicine” by subjecting her to “total manipulation” and 

added “I just wanted you to know the truth . . . since Breana has 

put me in a situation where I have to worry about having the FBI 

involved.” Cheryl forwarded the text to Breana, who 

subsequently reported it to the police.

In a December 22 email, appellant told Breana that incest, 

pedophilia and rape are federal crimes and added “I am here to 

save you. I am your protector. . . . You have been harmed and I 
4

want you to be healed. Rape is not love. Delta Force goes to the 

end of the earth to save and protect the vulnerable. You can 

trust me. I love you Queen B.” Although Breana did not initially 

understand what appellant meant, she subsequently realized he 

was falsely accusing her father of molesting her. On December

25, appellant emailed Breana “I know what you’re into. Tom has 

always been gay for me, that’s why he always went after the girls 

I get. He wants to make me jealous, so I fucked him because he’s 

a faggot.”

Two days later, appellant sent an email with the subject 

heading “Still waiting for the FBI.” The email stated: “If you 

decide to speak with me, you will have to submit to my rule and 

confess just how wrong you were about me. . . . I give you the 

opportunity to be my queen. This is the best offer you will ever 

get in your entire life. Speak now or forever be denied your 

peace.” Breana interpreted the latter comment as a threat that 

he had to be with appellant “or else.” 

On January 7, 2021, appellant sent Breana an email 

stating “Treason against God. Here you go, my lady. Make 

America great again.” The message included an photograph of a 

noose accompanied by the statement “Ribbon to support the cure 

for treason.” Breana understood this to mean that appellant 

expected her to submit to him “as he had put it in words before, 

or else here is the noose.” She subsequently sent appellant a 

message telling him to stop contacting and harassing her. The 

next day, appellant emailed a message stating that he had 

“stored” her “secrets and deleted e-mails” and that “[e]veryone 

will confess.” In another email, appellant referred to Breana’s 

father as “a pedo” and asked if Breana loved Tom “[b]ecause I am 

getting ready to come take you as my wife caveman style.” 
5

On January 9, appellant sent Cheryl a message stating 

that he was going to come to her house, take Breana as his wife, 

and “fuck the shit out of her every day for the rest of [his] life.” 

Appellant also accused Breana of having sex with her father and 

said he was coming to Simi Valley to “fuck the cum” of Breana’s 

father “out of [her].” In another message that included the

insignia “Central Security Service United States of America,”

appellant stated “[t]his is the badge I got for graduating from 

Berkeley at the top of my class. Surprise bitch. It happened 

when she was very young. This is the reason Breana has been a 

liar since she was a kid. . . . NSA is a signal intelligence 

operation. We are the best in the world and we have everything 

on everyone. If you don’t trust my authority, call the dorks at the 

FBI. If I’m crazy, I will be thrown in jail for impersonating a 

federal intelligence officer.” 

That same day, appellant sent Breana an email message 

with the heading “Coming to your house to kidnap and rape you, 

bitch.” The message stated, “Ha . . . . You better be ready, bitch. 

Call the FBI. Tell them America intelligence is coming.” The 

message included a photograph of a bound nurse with a bag or 

hood over her head. Breana, who is a nurse, took the message as 

“an immediate threat” and feared for her safety. Appellant’s

admission of prior crimes including armed robbery, coupled with

the fact that his current behavior was “so unhinged and 

unusual,” led Breana to conclude “there’s no telling what he 

would do or what he thought he could do.”

Three days later, Breana was at home with her parents and 

brother when Cheryl noticed that someone appeared to be

lingering at the front door. After looking outside, Breana’s 

brother stated “Jesus Christ, it’s [appellant].” Cheryl told 
6

appellant, who had driven over 800 miles from Idaho, to leave. 

He did not do so. Cheryl then armed herself with a crowbar and 

called 911. When appellant was arrested at the scene, a large

sheath knife was found attached to his belt. At trial, Breana and 

Cheryl both testified that they are still afraid of appellant. 

In testifying in his own defense, appellant denied ever 

threatening Breana or intending to cause her fear. He claimed 

that his use of the words “kidnapping” and “rape” was “more a 

satirical play on the traditional marriage values.” He also 

claimed that the image of the nurse with a hood over her head 

was merely intended to convey that nurses “may be victims of 

human trafficking.” 

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends his criminal threats conviction must be 

reversed because the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s 

finding that he willfully threatened to commit a crime against 

Breana involving great bodily injury or death. We are not 

persuaded.

“In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and/or the due process clause of

article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, we review the 

entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to 

determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, 

evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from 

which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 

Cal.4th 1158, 1212.) “We presume every fact in support of the 

judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from 

the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify 
7

the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not 

warranted simply because the circumstances might also 

reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” (People. v.

Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.) It is well settled that “‘[a] 

reversal for insufficient evidence “is unwarranted unless it 

appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient 

substantial evidence to support’” the jury’s verdict.’” (People v. 

Penunuri (2018) 5 Cal.5th 126, 142.)

“The elements of the crime of making a criminal threat are 

as follows: ‘“(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.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (In re A.G. (2020) 58 

Cal.App.5th 647, 653-654 (A.G.).)

“‘[S]ection 422 requires that the communication must be 

sufficient “on its face and under the circumstances in which it is 

made” to constitute a criminal threat. . . .’ [Citations.]” (A.G., 

supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 654.) “‘[T]he determination whether 

a defendant intended his words to be taken as a threat, and 
8

whether the words were sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, 

immediate and specific 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.]’ [Citation.]” 

(People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 754.) 

Appellant challenges only the jury’s finding on the first 

prong of the statute, i.e., that he willfully threatened to commit a 

crime against Breana resulting in death or great bodily injury. 

Great bodily injury is “‘bodily injury which is significant or 

substantial, not insignificant, trivial or moderate.’” (People v. 

Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 464.) As our Supreme 

Court has recognized, such a showing cannot be made as to a 

charged offense unless the injury is substantially beyond any 

injury inherent in the offense. (People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 

740,745-750.) Our Supreme Court has also held, and the jury 

was accordingly instructed, that “[r]ape, by itself, does not 

constitute great bodily injury.” (See CALCRIM No. 1300; People 

v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 582-583, disapproved on 

another ground in Escobar, at p. 751, fn. 5.) 

Appellant concedes that he willfully threatened to rape and 

kidnap Breana, but contends the evidence is insufficient to

support the finding that he threatened to carry out either those 

offenses in a manner that involved great bodily injury or death. 

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

judgment, compels the opposite conclusion. Appellant did not 

merely send messages in which he expressly threatened to rape 

and kidnap Breana. Among other things, he sent her a 

photograph of a noose with the statement “Ribbon to support the 
9

cure for treason.” He then sent another photograph depicting a 

bound nurse with a bag or hood over her head.

Although appellant asserts that the intended meaning of 

these photographs was ambiguous, the jury was free to find 

otherwise. Breana is a nurse and a noose plainly connotes a 

violent strangling or hanging, either of which would result in

great bodily injury or death. Breana understood the photographs 

to mean that appellant expected her to submit to him “as he had 

put it in words before, or else here is the noose.” Breana also

testified that due to her prior history with appellant, her 

knowledge of his prior violent crimes, and the erratic nature of 

his behavior, there was “no telling what he would do.” In light of

the surrounding circumstances, the jury could reasonably find 

that appellant willfully threatened Breana with a crime involving 

great bodily injury or death. (People v. Butler, supra, 85 

Cal.App.4th at p. 754.) Appellant’s claim of insufficient evidence

thus fails.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.
Ryan J. Wright, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, and Rene 

Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.