Court Opinion

ID: 9940268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 20:02:32.410288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:42.142069
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/13/24 P. v. Headen CA1/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     A166724
 v.
 BRIAN CHRISTOPHER HEADEN,                                               (San Mateo County Super. Ct.
           Defendant and Appellant.                                      No. 21NF005707A)

         A jury convicted Brian Christopher Headen of, among other things,
making criminal threats to Jane Doe. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a);
undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The trial court sentenced
him to two years in prison on that count. On appeal, he contends insufficient
evidence supported his conviction. We affirm.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         Headen and Doe were in a two-year relationship during which he
frequently committed acts of domestic violence — at least twice per month
and getting more serious over time. Once, he burned her on her chest with a
cigarette, scarring her; he thereafter sprayed her with mace she kept on her
key chain. Another time, he slapped her, and she suffered a black eye. On a
third occasion, he hit her twice after she deleted a woman’s message from his
phone. He also repeatedly threatened her and her family. He told her “he

                                                               1
knew where to find” her and her children “if [she] ever left,” and he watches
“48 Hours” — a true crime television program — so “he knows how to kill
[her] and get away with it.” He also threatened to “beat [her] father’s ass,”
who was 73 years old at the time. Because of these threats, Doe’s children
went to live with her uncle and ex-partner. She did not report the abuse to
the police because she “thought he would really try to kill [her] or do
something to [her] kids.” He had a volatile and explosive temper, particularly
after drinking alcohol, and he always kept a knife in his pocket.
      On May 9, 2021 — the day the conduct underlying the count
occurred — Headen repeatedly called Doe while she was at her
grandmother’s house. When she didn’t answer, he texted her, “bitch, whore,
you are not answering your f’ing phone, you are going to see what I’m going
to do to you.” She took his message as a threat “[b]ecause he always
threatened . . . and put his hands on [her],” and she was worried he’d “cause
injury to [her].” She also feared for her family’s safety. She called him “right
away, because [she] knew he was upset.” He answered, hung up on her, and
then called her back; he repeated this “harassing” pattern — hanging up and
calling back — multiple times. Ultimately, he demanded she give him $500
and said he would “do something to [her]” and take her and her children’s
belongings if she refused. She interpreted this as a threat to “harm” her and
worried she might die. She called the police; while she was on the phone with
them, he called several more times.
      Headen subsequently drove to the home of Doe’s grandmother. He
called Doe, told her he was there, and demanded she come outside. She was
scared to do so, worried he would kill her. When she didn’t go outside, he
drove off, only to return minutes later on foot. Doe — on the phone with the
police — opened the curtains and saw him standing outside. When she

                                       2
motioned to the phone, he ”smiled and said, ‘I got you,’ and turned around.”
His comment scared her; she worried, because of his past conduct, she “might
suffer significant harm to [her] body or death.” He unsuccessfully tried to
enter the locked front door and then walked to her son’s car, made a motion
to its tires, and she heard a “big noise.”1 Doe’s son ran outside, and Headen
fled, kicking Doe’s dog as he ran away. Doe’s son gave chase until Doe’s
mother told him to stop because she was afraid Headen would hurt him.
      Police responded to the scene. Doe told them in what direction Headen
had gone, and an officer drove in pursuit. The officer located a car matching
Doe’s description; the car fled, travelling 60 miles per hour in a residential
area with a 25-miles-per-hour speed limit. After the car drove into a busy
shopping center parking lot, the officer ended pursuit because she was
concerned about public safety, and she lost sight of the car. A short time
later, another officer found the abandoned vehicle — the police soon located
Headen on the roof of a nearby liquor store and arrested him. The police
found a box cutter knife in his pocket.
      A jury convicted Headen of various counts, including making criminal
threats. He admitted prior conviction allegations and was sentenced to a
total of nine years in prison. Two years of the sentence was for his criminal
threats conviction.
                                DISCUSSION
      Headen contends there was insufficient evidence to support his
criminal threats conviction. Specifically, he argues there was no substantial

      1 Doe later realized Headen had slashed the tires on cars belonging not

only to her son, but also her mother, uncle, and grandmother’s neighbor. And
when she returned to her home, she found her property and that of her
children was missing.
                                          3
evidence that he willfully and intentionally made a threat to commit a crime
resulting in Doe’s death or great bodily injury. We disagree.
      We evaluate a claim of insufficient evidence for substantial evidence.
(People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514–515.) In doing so, we “review the
entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine
whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value
such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
“Reversal . . . is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis
whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ”
(Ibid.)
      To obtain a conviction for criminal threats, the prosecution must
establish: “(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 . . . ‘[was] 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.” (People
v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227–228; § 422, subd. (a).)
      Headen contends there was insufficient evidence that he “willfully and
intentionally made a threat to commit a crime resulting in death or great

                                         4
bodily injury to Doe.”2 (Italics omitted.) He argues his statements — “I got
you” and that he “would do something to” Doe — did not constitute an “actual
(or implied) threat to kill or inflict injury”; those words were too vague to
convey such a threat. Moreover, he argues there was no substantial evidence
he “intended to convey” a threat to kill or cause injury. Finally, he insists the
circumstances surrounding the utterance of these words — including the
parties’ history and his prior acts of domestic violence — do not change the
analysis. We disagree.
        Words alone may suffice to establish the existence of a criminal threat,
but a “communication that is ambiguous on its face may nonetheless be found
to be a criminal threat if the surrounding circumstances clarify the
communication’s meaning.” (In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 635;
People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 753–754 [“parties’ history can
also be considered as one of the relevant circumstances”].) People v. Martinez
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1212 illustrates this principle. There, the defendant
stated, “ ‘I’m going to get you,’ ” “ ‘I’ll get back to you, I’ll get you.’ ” (Id. at
p. 1215.) In affirming the conviction, the court reasoned the potentially
ambiguous words — when understood in light of “all of the surrounding
circumstances,” including the parties’ relationship and the defendant’s
previous conduct — sufficiently conveyed a threat of great bodily injury or
death. (Id. at p. 1218.)
        We reach the same conclusion here. Even assuming Headen’s words —
“I got you” and that he “would do something to” Doe — did not, on their own,
sufficiently convey a willful and intentional threat to commit a crime
resulting in Doe’s great bodily injury or death, we have no difficulty finding

        2 Headen only addresses the first two elements of section 422; we do the

same.
                                            5
substantial evidence to support his conviction given the circumstances
surrounding the utterance of these words.
      Headen and Doe dated for two years, during which he repeatedly
committed acts of domestic violence against her, approximately twice per
month and increasing in severity over time. In addition to his physical
abuse, he told her he knew “how to kill [her] and get away with it” and that
he was going to assault her 73-year-old father. On the date at issue here, he
repeatedly called her and, when she didn’t answer, sent an angry text
message in which he wrote she was “going to see what [he was] going to do to
[her].” The message caused her fear for herself and her family. He later
demanded she give him $500 and said he would “do something to [her]” if she
refused. Ultimately, he drove to her grandmother’s house, called Doe, and
demanded she come outside. She feared he would kill her if she went outside.
She knew he had an explosive and volatile temper and always kept a knife in
his pocket. While on the phone with the police, she opened the curtains and
saw him standing there; when she gestured to the phone, he “smiled and
said, ‘I got you,’ and turned around.” His comment scared her, and she
thought she might “suffer significant harm to [her] body or death.”
      We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.
(People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331.) There was ample evidence of
Headen’s ongoing and escalating acts of domestic violence and threats to Doe
and her family. On the day at issue here, there was evidence of his anger
over Doe’s insufficient responsiveness and his demand that she give him $500
lest he “do something to” her. He drove to her grandmother’s home, in
possession of a knife, and demanded Doe come outside. When she didn’t, he
stood outside the window and — when she opened the curtains — he “smiled
and said, ‘I got you.’ ” Given the circumstances surrounding these utterances,

                                      6
we conclude there was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Headen willfully and
intentionally conveyed a threat to commit a crime resulting in Doe’s great
bodily injury or death. (In re George T., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 635.)
                                   DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                       7
                                _________________________
                                RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
TUCHER, P. J.

_________________________
PETROU, J.

A166724

                            8