Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Evidence of Juvenile Threats

Text: Defendant challenges the trial court's admission of evidence that he threatened school police officers Stokes and Magdaleno when they detained him in the security office of San Fernando High School in 1982. [17] (See the statement of facts, ante, at pp. 1278-1279.) The trial court deemed the evidence sufficient to establish threats against public officers under section 71, amounting to criminal activity for purposes of the aggravating factor provided by section 190.3, factor (b). Defendant claims the evidence failed to establish either his intent to interfere with the performance of official duties or his ability to carry out the threats. Defendant contends there was nothing to suggest his threats were meant to obtain his release from custody. The claim is meritless. His demand to know why he was being detained, just before he began threatening Magdaleno, and his subsequent attempt to walk out the door sufficiently established his intent to interfere with the officers' efforts to detain him. (18) Defendant argues that since he was handcuffed and in custody when he made the threats, he was in no position to carry them out. He relies on our decisions in People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 590 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142], and People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 777 [215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782]. However, in People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 919-920 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 116 P.3d 494], we explained that Tuilaepa and Boyd failed to recognize that section 71 does not require a present ability to carry out the threat. Indeed, the statute expressly provides that the threat may be communicated by `telephone, telegraph, or letter' (§ 71)clearly indicating the Legislature did not intend to require that the defendant have the capability to inflict the threatened unlawful injury immediately.  ( Dunkle, at p. 920.) It is sufficient if the defendant made a threat with the requisite intent and it reasonably appears to the recipient that the threat could be carried out. ( Ibid. ) [18] Thus, it is immaterial that defendant may have lacked the ability to act on his threats immediately. He told the officers that he knew or could find out where they lived, and that he would kill them. He also threatened to kill Stokes's wife and burn down his house. The officers testified that they took these threats seriously, and took precautions against them. This was sufficient to establish a reasonable appearance that the threats could be carried out.