Delinquency Case Law

In re George T. (Oct. 23, 2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1422 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 364]. Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

The juvenile court held that the youth had made criminal threats to two people in violation of Penal Code section 422 and adjudged the youth to be a ward of the court, ordering him committed to the juvenile hall for 100 days. The youth had shown a poem that he had written, called “Faces,” to two girls at his school. The poem contained the youth’s sentiments regarding his unhappiness and included excerpts such as “inside I am evil! For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school. So parents watch your children cuz I’m BACK!!” The juvenile court explained that this poetry constituted a criminal threat in the context of this case because the language of the poetry was very frightening and threatening, the youth presented the poem to the girls out of the blue rather in the context of discussions about dark poetry, and there was no evidence of any sort of existing relationship between the youth and the girls. The juvenile court also noted that the youth’s threats were taken seriously, as evidenced by the fact that the girls were scared by the poetry, causing one of them to stay home from school and e-mail her teacher about the “alarming” poetry. The youth appealed the juvenile court’s decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings that the words in his poem constituted a threat within the meaning of Penal Code section 422 rather than an expression of the youth’s inner feelings. Alternatively, the youth contended that his case should be remanded because the juvenile court failed to specify whether the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s finding that the youth made two criminal threats within the meaning of Penal Code section 422. However, the appellate court majority reversed and remanded the juvenile court’s dispositional order for the limited purpose of having the court declare the offenses to be either felonies or misdemeanors. To prove a violation of section 422, the prosecution must establish that (1) the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury to another person; (2) the defendant made the threat with the specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, even if there was no intent of actually carrying it out; (3) the threat was, under the circumstances in which it was made, 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) the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or his or her family’s safety; and (5) the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

The appellate court stated that when considering whether substantial evidence was presented to support the juvenile court’s finding, all surrounding circumstances must be considered rather than just the words alone. The appellate court also noted that section 422 requires that the words used be of an unequivocal, unconditional, and immediately threatening nature and must convey an immediate prospect of execution of the threat. The appellate court indicated that the history of the parties and the context in which the threats were made provided strong circumstantial evidence that the youth intended his words to be taken as a threat. The appellate court reasoned that the youth had approached the two girls, whom he barely knew, with the allegedly threatening poem when the class was not studying poetry. The appellate court held that these circumstances, along with the fact that the youth had previous behavioral problems, had a history of disdain for the school district, and possessed firearms in his home during the time of the alleged threats, all supported the finding that the youth intended to make a criminal threat within the meaning of section 422.

Furthermore, the appellate court rejected the youth’s argument that he had a First Amendment right to communicate with his fellow students by giving them a “dark poem,” arguing that regulation of the speech of students is constitutionally permissible if such words or conduct would materially and substantially disrupt the work of the school. The appellate court also distinguished In re Ryan (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, in which the court held that a student who for a class assignment turned in a painting of himself shooting a police officer who had given him a citation did not make a criminal threat in violation of section 422. The appellate court reasoned that the present case differed from In re Ryan because the youth did not write his poem for a school assignment, he handed the poem directly to the victims, and warned the victims and their parents to “watch” out because he could be the next kid to kill students with guns at school. The appellate court noted that the youth had acknowledged that the poetry was threatening, and therefore, the youth had had the specific intent to make a threat. Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the youth had made two criminal threats within the scope of section 422. The appellate court also held that the case should be remanded with directions to the juvenile court to declare the offenses either felonies or misdemeanors, since the record failed to show that the juvenile court had made this declaration.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Conrad Lee Rushing disagreed with the majority, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under Penal Code section 422. Specifically, the dissent stated that the evidence was insufficient to establish the following three of the five above mentioned required elements under section 422: that the minor intended to make a threat, that the purported threat was unequivocal, and that the recipients of his poem reasonably feared for their safety. The dissent concluded that the youth’s poem was not a threat but rather a mere hyperbole, like much of poetry. The dissent indicated that the majority relied on the language of the poem and the fact that the minor gave the poem to two girls in his honors English class in an attempt to make friends after transferring to a new school. The dissent held that these two factors do not support the finding of a threat within the meaning of section 422. Furthermore, the dissent stated that the plain meaning of the language in the poem indicates that it was not a threat; the dissent emphasized the poem stated that the youth “can” be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school. According to the dissent, the everyday usage of the word “can” expresses an ability to do something, not an intent. The dissent also noted that the majority’s attempt to distinguish In re Ryan was unpersuasive. According to the dissent, the circumstances of In re Ryan were even more serious than those of the instant case because the youth identified a specific victim, admitted that he was angry with the officer, and hoped that she would see the threatening drawing. The dissent emphasized that even though the circumstances were more severe in In re Ryan, that court still found the evidence insufficient to show a threat under the meaning of section 422. In addition, the dissent stated that poetry is an artistic expression intended to invoke emotion and that no rational person would mistake poetry for directives to immediate action. Therefore, the dissent concluded that the evidence warranted a reversal of the trial court’s decision.