People v. Toledo
26 P.3d 1051 · California Supreme Court · 2001
Facts
Defendant Ryan Patrick Toledo and his wife Joanne Ortega Toledo argued after he picked her up from work. The argument escalated at their apartment, where defendant threw a telephone, tossed a chair, and punched a hole in a door. Defendant told Joanne, "You know, death is going to become you tonight. I am going to kill you." He then approached her with scissors, plunging them towards her neck before stopping inches away and saying, "You don’t want to die tonight, do you? You’re not worth going to jail for." Joanne went to a neighbor's apartment, crying and shaking, and later told an officer she was afraid defendant would kill her, though she denied fear at trial. Defendant later chased Joanne and the neighbor, screaming, and a clothes iron was found shattered against a wall.
Procedural history
Defendant was charged with criminal threat and assault with a deadly weapon. A jury found him not guilty of criminal threat but guilty of attempted criminal threat and assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court rejected his argument that attempted criminal threat is not a crime and sentenced him. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for attempted criminal threat, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Issue
Does California law recognize the crime of attempted criminal threat?
Holding
Yes, there is a crime of attempted criminal threat under California law. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for this offense.
Rule
Under California law, an attempt to commit any crime is itself a crime, consisting of a specific intent to commit the crime and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. The crime of criminal threat, defined in Penal Code section 422, requires a willful threat of death or great bodily injury, made with specific intent that it be taken as a threat, which is unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific, and thereby causes reasonable sustained fear. An attempted criminal threat occurs when a defendant acts with the specific intent to make the type of threat defined in section 422 and performs an act beyond mere preparation, but the completed crime is thwarted by a fortuity. This recognition does not improperly expand the crime or violate the First Amendment, as the speech involved in such threats is not constitutionally protected.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.