WPCe [!:Ws#r:cS<oc^Vis5t\UNĶܯ `El_$dR2|(P)ލWSb%#n㶥*Pu:(Ne*(Q(Ӧ(@ \>)ZU/oxK-.ilw{ 1)fL~*Evt@׻5kT~1Zqj"DH`[: Ef)bx}~Txw92 `Qf9WPQbBƛ?[ł`iòV:MVE0u+7;* bԊ}#S9۠n|/^EXG5\"ROp4.5/׾);e3?=#UN_ % 0Y^ w40? mANX 0]cZ 1u 722 0 wd 0  0 e 0  0 0 0 [ 0 DJ 1  72U@K- 1{ 723HP LaserJet 10220&d9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,ԅ: /9eremy3|x U(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xglCcgkosw{TrianglesTriangle Bullet(9 Z(Times New Roman  ##d# y)3SW[_cgkoTriangle Bullet !XXUSUS.,  _ iR|Q  @@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #R|QQR|p#MONITORTRAININGSEMINAR#QR|#R|QR|QQR| L @!!$@@VV"#QR|_#h+May12,2009 H #h+ #   COMMONISSUESTHATARISEINAPPEALS  L FROMCRIMINALTHREATCONVICTIONS   # q# @*# <#h+Ԉ  @@00$JeremyPrice 8  #h+h+~##h+#StaffAttorney   \  i 8dd8   Introduction   Whilesuccessfulappellatechallengestocriminalthreatconvictionsarenotlegion,  appealsfromsuchconvictionshavethepotentialtopresentawidevarietyofappellate  issues.Californiasprimarycriminalthreatstatute,foundatPenalCodesection422,  containsatleastfiveelementstoexamineforpossiblesufficiencyclaims.Anumberof   theseelementsareconstitutionallymandatedinordertosafeguardagainstthe   _criminalization_Ԁofprotectedspeech,and,thus,criminalthreatcasesmaypresent   interestingandimportantFirstAmendmentissues.Morever,criminalthreatcasesthatdo   haveconstitutionaldimensionsmeritindependentreviewonappealratherthanthemore    deferentialsubstantialevidencetesttowhichthesufficiencyofmostcriminalconvictions   issubjectedbyreviewingcourts.Addintothemixthatcriminalthreatconvictionsare   bothwobblersandstrikes,anditbecomesclearthatappealsfromsuchconvictionsshould   drawclosescrutiny(bothduetothearrayofpossiblechallengesandthesevere   consequencesoffelonycriminalthreatconvictions).Thesematerialsaremeantasa   startingplaceforyourresearchonappealsfromcriminalthreat_convcitions_.   PenalCodesection422   PenalCodesection422providesinpertinentpart:   Anypersonwhowillfullythreatenstocommitacrimewhichwillresultindeathorgreat  bodilyinjurytoanotherperson,withthespecificintentthatthestatement,madeverbally,  inwriting,orbymeansofanelectroniccommunicationdevice,istobetakenasathreat,  evenifthereisnointentofactuallycarryingitout,which,onitsfaceandunderthe  circumstancesinwhichitismade,issounequivocal,unconditional,immediate,and  specificastoconveytothepersonthreatened,agravityofpurposeandanimmediate  prospectofexecutionofthethreat,andtherebycausesthatpersonreasonablytobein  sustainedfearforhisorherownsafetyorforhisorherimmediatefamilyssafety,shall   bepunishedbyimprisonmentinthecountyjailnottoexceedoneyear,orby ! imprisonmentinthestateprison.(Pen.Code,422.) " TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthas dividedthecrimeofcriminalthreatintofive $  constituentelementsthatmustbeestablishedtofindthatadefendanthascommittedthis % ! offense.(Peoplev.Toledo(2001)26Cal.4th221,227228.) &!"  Inordertoproveaviolationofsection422,theprosecutionmustestablishallofthe (#$ following:(1)thatthedefendantwillfullythreaten[ed]tocommitacrimewhichwill )$% resultindeathorgreatbodilyinjurytoanotherperson,(2)thatthedefendantmadethe *%& threatwiththespecificintentthatthestatement...istobetakenasathreat,evenif +&' thereisnointentofactuallycarryingitout,(3)thatthethreat-whichmaybemade  verbally,inwriting,orbymeansofanelectroniccommunicationdevice-wasonits  faceandunderthecircumstancesinwhichit[was]made,...sounequivocal,  unconditional,immediate,andspecificastoconveytothepersonthreatened,agravityof  purposeandanimmediateprospectofexecutionofthethreat,(4)thatthethreatactually  causedthepersonthreatenedtobeinsustainedfearforhisorherownsafetyorforhisor   herimmediatefamilyssafety,and(5)thatthethreatenedpersonsfearwas   reasonabl[e]underthecircumstances.(Ibid.)    CALCRIMno.1300    Informulatingthepatterncriminalthreatjuryinstruction,theJudicialCouncilhasbroken   downPenalCodesection422intosixelements(insteadofthefiveelementsidentifiedby   theCaliforniaSupremeCourtinToledo).CALCRIMno.1300setsforththeelementsof   theoffenseasfollows:   Toprovethatthedefendantisguiltyofthiscrime,thePeoplemustprove  that:  ` ` 1.Thedefendantwillfullythreatenedtounlawfullykillor  unlawfullycausegreatbodilyinjuryto;  2.Thedefendantmadethethreat(orally/inwriting/by  electroniccommunicationdevice);  3.Thedefendantintendedthat(his/her)statementbe  understoodasathreat[andintendedthatitbecommunicated   to]; ! 4.Thethreatwassoclear,immediate,unconditional,and # specificthatitcommunicatedtoaseriousintentionandtheimmediateprospectthat % ! thethreatwouldbecarriedout; &!" 5.Thethreatactuallycausedtobeinsustainedfearfor(his/her)ownsafety[or )$% forthesafetyof(his/her)immediatefamily]; *%&  +&' AND  6.sfearwas  reasonableunderthecircumstances.  ` ` h AttemptedCriminalThreat    InPeoplev.Toledo,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtconcludedthat adefendantproperly   maybefoundguiltyofattemptedcriminalthreatwhenever,actingwiththespecificintent   tocommittheoffenseofcriminalthreat,thedefendantperformsanactthatgoesbeyond    merepreparationandindicatesthatheorsheisputtingaplanintoaction.Furthermore,in   viewoftheelementsoftheoffenseofcriminalthreat,adefendantactswiththespecific   intenttocommittheoffenseofcriminalthreatonlyifheorshespecificallyintendsto   threatentocommitacrimeresultingindeathorgreatbodilyinjurywiththefurtherintent   thatthethreatbetakenasathreat,undercircumstancessufficienttoconveytotheperson   threatenedagravityofpurposeandanimmediateprospectofexecutionsoasto  reasonablycausethepersontobeinsustainedfearforhisorherownsafetyorforhisor  herfamilyssafety.(Peoplev.Toledo,supra,26Cal.4thatpp.230231.)  Toledoprovidedanumberofexamplesofsituationspursuanttowhichapersoncouldbe  convictedofanattemptedcriminalthreat:    (gly3 " 3"   36$2gl3  0    ifadefendanttakesallstepsnecessarytoperpetratethecompletedcrimeof  criminalthreatbymeansofawrittenthreat,butthecrimeisnotcompletedonly  becausethewrittenthreatisinterceptedbeforedeliverytothethreatenedperson 36$c$݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3&2gl3  0    ifadefendant,withtherequisiteintent,orallymakesasufficientthreatdirectlyto  thethreatenedperson,butforsomereasonthethreatenedpersondoesnot  understandthethreat 3&<&݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3'2gl3  0    ifadefendant,againactingwiththerequisiteintent,makesasufficientthreatthat " isreceivedandunderstoodbythethreatenedperson,but,forwhateverreason,the # threatdoesnotactuallycausethethreatenedpersontobeinsustainedfearforhis $  orhersafetyeventhough,underthecircumstances,thatpersonreasonablycould % ! havebeenplacedinsuchfear 3''݌&!"(#(# Ќ  AccordingtoToledo, [_i]n_Ԁeachofthesesituations,onlyafortuity,notintendedbythe (#$ defendant,haspreventedthedefendantfromperpetratingthecompletedoffenseof )$% criminalthreatitself.(Peoplev.Toledo,supra,26Cal.4thatp.231;seealsoInre *%& SylvesterC.(2006)137_Cal.App_.4th601.) +&' _ԇBecauseanattemptedcriminalthreatisalesserincludedoffenseofmakingacriminal  threat,iftheevidenceattrialfallswithinanyoftheToledoexamplescitedabove,thetrial  courthasa_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoinstructthejuryonthecrimeofattemptedcriminalthreat,  andfailuretodosocanberaisedonappealwithorwithoutanobjectioninthetrialcourt.   LesserIncludedOffenses(OtherThanAttempts)    ThereisasplitofauthorityastowhetherthreateningapublicofficerinviolationofPenal   Codesection71isalesserincludedoffenseofmakingacriminalthreatinviolationof   PenalCodesection422.PenalCodesection71setsforththefollowingoffense:    Everypersonwho,withintenttocause,attemptstocause,orcauses,any   officeroremployeeofanypublicorprivateeducationalinstitutionorany   publicofficeroremployeetodo,orrefrainfromdoing,anyactinthe   performanceofhisduties,bymeansofathreat,directlycommunicatedto   suchperson,toinflictanunlawfulinjuryuponanypersonorproperty,and  itreasonablyappearstotherecipientofthethreatthatsuchthreatcouldbe  carriedout,isguiltyofapublicoffense....  //   `  In_In_ԀreMarcusT.(2001)89_Cal.App_.4th468,470,DivisionFouroftheSecondDistrict  appliedtheaccusatorypleadingstestandconcluded: thethreatagainstthepublicofficer  inviolationofPenalCodesection71was,onthefactsofthiscase,alesserand  necessarilyincludedcrimeoftheterroristthreatinviolationofPenalCodesection422.  Asaresult,theminorcouldnothavebeenfoundtohavecommittedbothoffenses,as   [_w]here_Ԁtwocrimesarebaseduponthecommissionofthesameact,andoneisalesser  andnecessarilyincludedoffenseoftheother,theperpetratormaynotbefoundguiltyof  both.(InreMarcus.T.,supra,89_Cal.App_.4thatp.471.)  Ontheotherhand,inPeoplev._Chaney_Ԁ(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th253,DivisionOneofthe   FirstDistrictCourtofAppealdisagreedwithMarcusT.In_Chaney_,theCourtofAppeal ! observedthat thethirdelementofsection71,i.e.,thespecificintenttoinfluencethe " performanceof[thepublicofficers]duties,bycausingorattemptingtocausehimtodo, # orrefrainfromdoing,anyactintheperformanceofhisduties,isnotencompassedbythe $  allegationsoftheaccusatorypleadingchargingthedefendantwithaviolationofPenal % ! Codesection422. &!" Despitethisconflict,appellatepractitionerswillwanttoarguethatPenalCodesection71 (#$ does(or,atleast,can)amounttoalesserincludedoffenseofPenalCodesection422 )$% undertheaccusatorypleadings_test._ԀDoingso,whenthefactsofagivencasepermit, *%& createsatleasttwopossibleappellateclaims:(1)thatthedefendantcouldnothavebeen +&' convictedofbothoffensesand(2)thetrialcourtshouldhaveinstructedthejuryonthe  lesserincludedoffense(eitherbecauseofadefenserequestorbecauseofa_sua_Ԁ_sponte_  duty).Similarargumentsshouldbeconsidered(whenappropriate)withrespectto:  ! !  ()yy " 3"   3=2)3  0    PenalCodesection69,whichcriminalizes attempts,bymeansofanythreator  violence,todeterorpreventanexecutiveofficerfromperforminganyduty   imposeduponsuchofficerbylaw.(Pen.Code,69.) 3==݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3m?2)3  0    PenalCodesection76,whichappliestoanyperson whoknowinglyandwillingly   threatensthelifeof,orthreatensseriousbodilyharmto[certainpublicofficials]   withthespecificintentthatthestatementistobetakenasathreat,andthe   apparentabilitytocarryoutthatthreatbyanymeans....(Pen.Code,76.) 3m??݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3A2)3  0    PenalCodesection653m,subdivision(a),whichappliestoanyperson who,with   intenttoannoy,telephonesormakescontactbymeansofanelectronic  communicationdevicewithanotherandaddressestoorabouttheotherpersonany  obscenelanguageoraddressestotheotherpersonanythreattoinflictinjurytothe  personorpropertyofthepersonaddressedoranymemberofhisorherfamily...  .(Pen.Code,653m,_subd_._(a).)_ 3AA݌(#(# Ќ  Note: Thedefinitionofalessernecessarilyincludedoffenseistechnicalandrelatively  clear.UnderCalifornialaw,alesseroffenseisnecessarilyincludedinagreateroffenseif  eitherthestatutoryelementsofthegreateroffense,orthefactsactuallyallegedinthe  accusatorypleading,includealltheelementsofthelesseroffense,suchthatthegreater  cannotbecommittedwithoutalsocommittingthelesser.[Citations.](Peoplev._Birks_  (1998)19Cal.4th108,117.)Noneoftheabovethreebulletedoffensesisnecessarilya  lesserincludedoffenseofPenalCodesection422usingthestatutoryelementstest.  Therefore,appellatecounselwillwanttoapplytheaccusatorypleadingstest.MarcusT.,  supra,providesagoodexampleofthisapproach.    SufficiencyoftheEvidence  " StandardofReviewonAppeal $  Generally,criminalthreatconvictionsarereviewedforsubstantialevidencejustlikemost &!" otherinsufficiencyclaimsonappeal.However,thepresenceofconcomitant '"# constitutionalclaimsmaynecessitateastandardofreviewlessdeferential#I#tothetrierof (#$ factthanthesubstantialevidencestandard.(InreGeorgeT.(2004)33Cal.4th620,633, )$% citingBoseCorp.v.ConsumersUnionofU.S.,Inc.,(1984)466U.S.485,514.)Criminal *%& threatprosecutionsmayraisesuchconstitutionalconcernsbecausetheyoftenposea +&' thresholdquestionofwhetherthecommunicationatissueinvolvesspeechprotectedby  theFirstAmendment.(InreGeorgeT.,supra,33Cal.4thatp.634.)  #J#Ineffect, thestandardsetforthinSection422isboththestatutorydefinitionofacrime  andtheconstitutionalstandardfordistinguishingbetweenpunishablethreatsand  protectedspeech.(InreRyanD.(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th854,86162.)Therefore,   whenpresentedwithasufficiencyoftheevidencechallengeinacriminalthreatcase,the   reviewingcourtshouldconductanindependentreviewoftherecordif adefendantraises   aplausibleFirstAmendmentdefensetoensurethataspeakersfreespeechrightshave   notbeeninfringedbyatrieroffactsdeterminationthatthecommunicationatissue   constitutesacriminalthreat.(Inre.GeorgeT.,supra,33Cal.4thatp.632.)    Independentreviewisparticularlyimportantinthethreatscontextbecauseitisatypeof   speechthatissubjecttocategoricalexclusionfromFirstAmendmentprotection....   (Id.atp.634.)Forthisreason,itiscriticalthatthereviewingcourtindependently   determinewhetherthespeechwithwhichitisconfrontedcomprisesathreator  constitutionallyprotectedspeech.(Ibid.)  InGeorgeT.,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtappliedthisindependentstandardofreview  afteraminorspoetrywasfoundtobeacriminalthreatinviolationofPenalCodesection  422.InreErnestoH.(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th298,theSixthDistrictCourtofAppeal  appliedtheindependentstandardofreviewfollowingafindingthataminorviolated  PenalCodesection71.DivisionTwooftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealappliedthe  independentstandardofreviewinanunpublishedcriminalthreatcaseinvolvinganote  passedfromonestudenttoanothercontainingracistsonglyrics#M#thatpurportedtobeaKu  KluxKlanrecruitmentdocument.(InreRyanM.,2006WL2054071.)  Appellatecounselshouldcarefullyexaminewhethercriminalthreatcasesraiseplausible  FirstAmendmentdefenses,and,ifso,shouldarguethatthesufficiencyoftheevidence  shouldbesubjectindependentreviewratherthanthesubstantialevidencetest.   Note,however,thatindependentreviewisnotthesameasdenovoreview. Becausethe " trieroffactisinasuperiorpositiontoobservethedemeanorofwitnesses,credibility # determinationsarenotsubjecttoindependentreview,norarefindingsoffactthatarenot $  relevanttotheFirstAmendmentissue.(InreGeorgeT.,supra,33Cal.4thatp.634.) %!! TheThreatMustBetoCommitaCrimeThatWillResultinGreatBodilyInjuryorDeath '##    `     h Inthecriminalthreatcontext, greatbodilyinjurymeans: significantorsubstantial )%% physicalinjury.Itisaninjurythatisgreaterthanminorormoderateharm.(_CALCRIM_ *&& no.1300;seealsoPen.Code,12022.7,_subd_.(f);seealsoPeoplev._Maciel_Ԁ(2003)113 +'' _Cal.App_.4th679.)  DefendantMustHavetheSpecificIntentThattheCommunicationBeTakenasaThreat  Thespecificintentdeterminationrequiresexaminationoftheallegedthreatbothonits  faceandinthecontextofitssurroundingcircumstances.(InreRyanD.,supra,100   _Cal.App_.4thatp.863.)   Caseswherethedefendantswordsandthesurroundingcircumstanceswere insufficient    tosupportafindingthatthedefendantharboredtherequisitespecificintent:    ! !  (glyy " 3"   3L_2gl3  0    InreRyanD.(2002)100_Cal.App_.4th854 3L_y_݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3P`2gl3  0    Peoplev.Felix(2001)92_Cal.App_.4th905 3P`}`݌ (#(# Ќ  Criminalthreatoffensesarespecificintentcrimes.Thus,theUnitedStatesSupreme  CourtheldinVirginiav.Black(2003)538U.S.343thatwhileconsiderationof  circumstancessurroundingtheburningofacrossmayrevealanintenttoengagein  violentactivities,crossburningitselfdoesnotperseconstituteathreat.(Id.atp.366.)  TheFirstAmendmentrequiresconsiderationof contextualfactorsthatarenecessaryto  decidewhetheraparticularcrossburningisintendedtointimidate.(Ibid.)Therefore,  theBlackCourtheldunconstitutionalaVirginiastatuteprovidingthat burningofacross  shallbeprimafacieevidenceofanintenttointimidateapersonorgroupofpersons.(Id.  atpp.34748.)InlightofthehatefulfactsatissueinBlack,thecasemaybeparticularly  usefulwhenattackingacriminalthreatconvictionforlackofspecificintent.  Caseswherethedefendantswordsandthesurroundingcircumstanceswere sufficient to  supportafindingthatthedefendantharboredtherequisitespecificintent:  ! !  (glyy " 3"   3?g2gl3  0    Peoplev._Mosley_Ԁ(2007)155_Cal.App_.4th313 3?glg݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3eh2gl3  0    Peoplev._Gaut_(2002)95_Cal.App_.4th1425 3ehh݌!(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3i2gl3  0    Peoplev.Brooks(1994)26_Cal.App_.4th142 3ii݌"(#(# Ќ  Whilethedefendantmustintendforthevictimtoperceivethecommunicationasathreat, $  thedefendantneednotpossessthespecificintenttoactuallycarryouttheallegedthreat. %!! (Peoplev.Martinez(1997)53_Cal.App_.4th1212.)NordoesPenalCodesection422 &"" requireanimmediateabilityonthepartofthedefendanttocarryouttheallegedthreat. '## (Peoplev.Lopez(1999)74_Cal.App_.4th_675.)_ԀMoreover,PenalCodesection422is ($$ violatedifthethreatisreceivedandinducessustainedfear-whetherornotthethreatener )%% knowshisthreathashititsmark.(Peoplev.Teal(1998)61_Cal.App_.4th277,281.) *&&  +'' TheThreatMustBeSufficientlyUnequivocal,Unconditional,Immediate,andSpecific  Inorderforathreattobesubjecttocriminalprosecutionitmust onitsfaceandunder  thecircumstancesinwhichit[was]made[be]...sounequivocal,unconditional,  immediate,andspecificastoconveytothepersonthreatened,agravityofpurposeandan  immediateprospectofexecutionofthethreat....(InreGeorgeT.,supra,33Cal.4that   p.630.)Tomakethisdetermination,theallegedthreatshouldbeconsideredwithinthe   contextinwhichitwasmade.(Id.atpp.63738.) Thismeansthatthecommunication   andthesurroundingcircumstancesaretobeconsideredtogether.(InreRyanD.,supra,   100_Cal.App_.4thatp.860.) Thus,itisthecircumstancesunderwhichthethreatismade   thatgivemeaningtotheactualwordsused.(Peoplev.Butler(2000)85_Cal.App_.4th   745,753.)   Caseswherethedefendantswordsandthesurroundingcircumstanceswere insufficient    tosupportafindingthecommunicationinquestionwassounequivocal,unconditional,  immediate,andspecificastoconveytothepersonthreatenedagravityofpurposeandan  immediateprospectofexecutionofthethreat:  ! !  (glyy " 3"   3>u2gl3  0    InreGeorgeT.(2004)33Cal.4th620 3>uku݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3>v2gl3  0    Inre_Ricky_ԀT.(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th1132 3>vkv݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3cw2gl3  0    #u#InreRyanM.,2006WL2054071[unpublished] 3cww݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3nx2gl3  0    Peoplev._Bayan_,2006WL3012925[unpublished] 3nxx݌(#(# Ќ  Caseswherethedefendantswordsandthesurroundingcircumstanceswere sufficient to  supportafindingthecommunicationinquestionwassounequivocal,unconditional,  immediate,andspecificastoconveytothepersonthreatenedagravityofpurposeandan  immediateprospectofexecutionofthethreat:  ! !  (glyy " 3"   3{2gl3  0    Peoplev._Mosley_Ԁ(2007)155_Cal.App_.4th313 3{{݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3|2gl3  0    Peoplev._Gaut_(2002)95_Cal.App_.4th1425 3||݌!(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3}2gl3  0    Peoplev.Butler(2000)85_Cal.App_.4th745 3} ~݌"(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3~2gl3  0    Peoplev.Mendoza(1997)59_Cal.App_.4th1333 3~&݌#(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32gl3  0    Peoplev._Lepolo_Ԁ(1997)55_Cal.App_.4th85 3.݌$ (#(# Ќ  VictimMustExperienceSustainedFear,ReasonableUndertheCircumstances &"" Thevictimoftheallegedthreatmustactuallyexperiencesustainedfearasaresultofthe ($$ allegedthreat,andthesustainedfearmustalsobereasonableundercircumstances.(Inre )%% _Ricky_ԀT.(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th1132.)Thus,thereisabothasubjectiveandanobjective *&& fearcomponenttoPenalCodesection422.Inthiscontext, sustainedmeansaperiodof +'' timethatextendsbeyondwhatismomentary,fleeting,ortransitory.(Inre_Ricky_ԀT.  (2001)87_Cal.App_.4th1132;seealsoPeoplev.Allen(1995)33_Cal.App_.4th1149.)In  addition,thevictimsknowledgeofthedefendantspriorconductisrelevantin  establishingthatthevictimwasinastateofsustainedfear.(Peoplev.Allen(1995)33  _Cal.App_.4th1149;_see_ԀalsoPeoplev._McCray_Ԁ(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th159andPeoplev.  _Garrett_Ԁ(1994)30_Cal.App_.4th962.)   Caseswheretheevidenceofthevictimssubjectiveand/orobjectivefearwere    insufficient tosupportaviolationofPenalCodesection422:   ! !  (glyy " 3"   32gl3  0    InreSylvesterC.(2006)137_Cal.App_.4th601 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32gl3  0    Inre_Ricky_ԀT.(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th1132## 3lj݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32gl3  0    Peoplev._Holzhauser_,2006WL181688[unpublished] 3/݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32gl3  0    InreMatthewL.,2005WL914723[unpublished] 3=݌ (#(# Ќ  PenalCodesection422isviolatedifthethreatisreceivedandinducessustainedfear-  whetherornotthethreatenerknowshisthreathashititsmark.(Peoplev.Teal(1998)61  _Cal.App_.4th277,281.)  Caseswheretheevidenceofthevictimssubjectiveandobjectivefearwere sufficient to  supportaviolationofPenalCodesection422:  ! !  (glyy " 3"   32gl3  0    InreErnestoH.(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th298## 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3Ґ2gl3  0    Peoplev.Ortiz(2002)101_Cal.App_.4th410,417 3Ґ݌(#(# Ќ    (glyy " 3"   3^2gl3  0    Peoplev.Allen(1995)33_Cal.App_.4th1149 3^݌(#(# Ќ  PenalCodesection422RequiresMoreThanMereGesturesbytheDefendant  InPeoplev.Franz(2001)88_Cal.App_.4th1426,theThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheld   thatgesturesunaccompaniedbyawrittenorverbalstatementareinsufficienttosupporta ! convictionunderPenalCodesection422.However,inthatcase,theCourtofAppeal " foundsubstantialevidenceofaverbalstatement(here,eithera shushora sh)and # affirmedtheconvictioninquestion.TheCourtofAppealdeclinedtorulewhethera $  verbalstatementmustbeanactualwordtoformthebasisofacriminalthreatconviction. %!!  FailuretoInstructonJurorUnanimity  '## Whenevidenceispresentedtoajurythattendstoprovemorethanoneactthatmay )%% constitutethecrimecharged,thejurymustbegivenaunanimityinstruction,orthe *&& prosecutormustelecttheactonwhichtorely.(Peoplev._Napoles_Ԁ(2002)104 +'' _Cal.App_.4th108,114.)Iftheevidencedisclosesagreaternumberofthreatsthanthose  charged,theprosecutormustmakeanelectionoftheeventsreliedoninthecharges.  Whennoelectionismade,thejurymustbegivenaunanimityinstruction.(Peoplev.  Butler(2000)85_Cal.App_.4th745,755,fn.4;Peoplev._Melhado_Ԁ(1998)60_Cal.App_.4th  1529,1534,1539.)  WhilethereisanapparentsplitofauthorityamongCaliforniasintermediateappellate   courtsregardingtheappropriatestandardofharmlesserrorforfailuretoinstructonjuror   unanimity,anumberofcaseshaveappliedthefederalChapmanharmlessbeyonda   reasonabledoubtstandardratherthanthestateWatsonstandard.(SeePeoplev.Wolfe   (2003)114_Cal.App_.4th177,185-188[applyingChapman];Peoplev._Melhado_,supra,60   _Cal.App_.4thatp.1536[applyingChapman];Peoplev._Deletto_Ԁ(1983)147_Cal.App_.3d   458,472[applyingChapman];butseePeoplev.Vargas(2001)91_Cal.App_.4th506,562   [applyingWatson];Peoplev.Patrick(1981)126_Cal.App_.3d952,967[applying   Watson].)ThefederalstandardsetoutinChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18  permitsanappellatecourttoaffirmonlyiftheerrorisharmlessbeyondareasonable  doubt.CasesthathaveconcludedthatChapmangovernshavedeterminedthata  _nonunanimous_Ԁverdictdeniesdueprocess,violatingthefederalconstitution,by  effectivelyloweringtheprosecutionsburdenofproof.Appellateattorneysraisinga  unanimityinstructionissueshouldalwaysarguefortheapplicationofChapmanonthese  grounds.   CriminalThreatsareBothWobblersandStrikes   Criminalthreatsmaybechargedasfeloniesormisdemeanors.(SeePen.Code,422  [wheretheoffenseisrenderedpunishable byimprisonmentinthecountyjailnotto  exceedoneyear,orbyimprisonmentinthestateprison].)Atthesametime,felony  criminalthreatconvictionsareconsideredstrikes(seePen.Code,1192.7,_subd_.(c)(38))  andmaybeusedtoenhancethedefendantssentencepursuanttoPenalCodesections667   and1170.12.(SeealsoPeoplev.Moore(2004)118_Cal.App_.4th74.)Becauseofthe ! severepenalconsequencesofacquiringafelonycriminalthreatconviction,appellate " counselwillwanttotakealongandhardlookatrenewinganymotionsthatmayhave # beenmadeinthetrialcourttoreduceafelonycriminalthreatconvictiontoa $  misdemeanorpursuanttoPenalCodesection17,subdivision(b).Thefactthatafelony % ! convictionunderPenalCodesection422constitutesastrikeshouldalsoinformappellate &!" counselsdecisionwhethertoraiseaninsufficiencyoftheevidenceclaimonappeal. '"#