People v. De La Cruz CA2/6
B306524
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Defendant Alejandro De La Cruz was convicted of making criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422), petty theft, and possession of a controlled substance; sentenced to an aggregate four-year prison term and appealed.
- At a Walmart, De La Cruz refused to pay for a mango and a Coke after a manager (C.A.) confronted him; while nearby he told her "I’m going to fucking kill you" and said the store was "his."
- C.A. described an observable change in De La Cruz’s demeanor (tensing, angry expression), was shaking, feared for her life and her children, moved away down the aisle, had 911 called, and remained fearful for up to 30 minutes after he left.
- Police found De La Cruz outside the store with methamphetamine; the People introduced a prior 2018 Walmart incident in which he made a similar threat while stealing.
- Trial jury convicted on the criminal-threats count; on appeal De La Cruz challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support the §422 conviction (including ‘‘sustained fear’’) and (2) the trial court’s failure to instruct sua sponte on the lesser-included offense of attempted criminal threat. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal threats (§422) | People: testimony and circumstances show an unequivocal death threat, intent it be taken as a threat, immediate prospect of execution, and reasonable, sustained fear | De La Cruz: words were mere rant; no means to carry out threat; fear was fleeting | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported each §422 element including sustained fear and intent; jury could credit C.A.’s testimony and surrounding circumstances. |
| Duty to instruct on lesser-included attempted criminal threat | People: evidence of sustained fear was substantial; no reasonable basis for a jury to find only attempt | De La Cruz: evidence could have supported reasonable doubt on sustained fear, requiring attempted-threat instruction | Affirmed: no sua sponte instruction required—insufficient substantial evidence that only attempted threat occurred; any error would be nonprejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1993) (standard of review on sufficiency of evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- People v. Toledo, 26 Cal.4th 221 (Cal. 2001) (elements of criminal threats and definition of attempted criminal threat)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (when trial court must instruct on lesser-included offenses)
- People v. Thomas, 53 Cal.4th 771 (Cal. 2012) (lesser-included instruction only if substantial evidence supports the lesser but not the greater)
- People v. Fierro, 180 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (sustained fear may be found where fear lasts minutes after incident)
- People v. Culbert, 218 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (sustained fear is not necessarily momentary; fear that is ‘‘not instantly over’’ can suffice)
- People v. Wilson, 186 Cal.App.4th 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (§422 does not require immediate ability to carry out the threat)
- People v. Solis, 90 Cal.App.4th 1002 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (manner, affect, and conduct around a threat are relevant to gravity and immediacy of purpose)