Opinion ID: 4118870
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insults of CYA Teaching Assistant

Text: First, defendant argues that the incident in which he called the CYA teaching assistant a ―coward‖ and ―bald-hair bitch‖ (see ante, at pp. 74-75) did not violate a criminal statute or constitute an imminent threat. The evidence belies his claim. Ream testified that defendant was walking around the classroom, calling her a bitch, and saying he did not have to listen to her. He seemed to be inciting the other students against her. She felt threatened and called security to have him removed. Defendant was verbally abusive to the officer who removed him and the counselor who tried to talk to him. He repeatedly called them cowards and challenged each to ―settle things one-on-one.‖ He became physically agitated and had to be placed in a restraint hold. Ream reported the incident on a disciplinary form. When defendant returned to her class afterward, he walked straight to Ream and said, ―see, your write-up means nothing. I can do whatever.‖ Ream testified she felt threatened during the encounter. Defendant argues this evidence was inadmissible because there was no evidence he intended to threaten Ream or induced a reasonable belief that any 77 threats could be carried out. (See People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 580; Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 777.) However, Ream repeatedly testified that she felt threatened, both by defendant‘s insulting words and his menacing behavior. She could have reasonably understood his statement that her disciplinary write-up meant nothing and he could ―do whatever‖ as a threat of physical retaliation for her call to security. The crime of unlawful threats can be established even if the defendant had no present ability to act on the threat (People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1311), and the recipient need not perceive any immediate danger of the threat being carried out (People v. Iboa (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 111, 121). Moreover, even if defendant‘s verbal abuse of Ream did not rise to the level of criminal threats, evidence about the classroom encounter provided important context for testimony about his removal from the classroom, during which he forcibly struggled and made explicit threats against the security officer and counselor to ―settle things one-on-one.‖ Defendant does not dispute that evidence of this behavior was properly admitted. ― ‗[W]hen the prosecution has evidence of conduct by the defendant that [is admissible under section 190.3, factor (b)], evidence of the surrounding circumstances is admissible to give context to the episode, even though the surrounding circumstances include other criminal activity that would not be admissible by itself. [Citation.]‘ ‖ (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1081.) In People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 505, evidence that the defendant had called a witness‘s son ―names like ‗punk‘ and ‗sissy‘ ‖ was properly admitted as a surrounding circumstance of a factor (b) crime. The same is true here.