Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threat to Kill Correctional Officers

Text: The prosecution introduced as evidence in aggravation, under the category of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence (§ 190.3, factor (b)), defendant's assault on Alameda County Sheriffs Deputy Charles Utvick while the latter was in the process of transporting him to court in 1987. Utvick testified that immediately after this incident, defendant stated that he would kill one of Utvick's fellow deputies, or have him killed, and he would have the rest of us taken care of as well. Defendant now objects to the admission of that statement, to which trial counsel timely objected. Defendant points out that this threat was not alleged as a separate incident in aggravation and is insufficiently connected with the Utvick assault to warrant admission. Defendant further contends that this kind of idle threat, made while he was handcuffed and shackled, was merely an expression of frustration and not the type of evidence admissible under the express or implied threat to use force or violence clause of section 190.3, factor (b). He claims both state law error and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights as an unreliable determination of penalty. We disagree. As we stated in People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 757, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741, [v]iolent `criminal activity' presented in aggravation may be shown in context, so that the jury has full opportunity, in deciding the appropriate penalty, to determine its seriousness. Here, defendant's remarks were clearly relevant to the context in which Utvick's assault occurred.