People v. Iboa , District: 2 DCA , Division: 3 , Case #: B230342
Opinion Date: 6/22/2012 , DAR #: 8603
Case Holding:
Threats to perform an illegal act to prevent an executive officer from performing his duty, even where unaccompanied by physical violence, are not protected by the First Amendment. When firefighters came to appellants property to extinguish a fire, appellant argued with the captain and cursed firefighters coming to his aid. He threw a fire hose out of his backyard, clenched his fists, paced back and forth, and then lifted his shirt to reveal his gang tattoos. When back-up law enforcement arrived, he retreated to his house. He was convicted of seven counts of Penal Code section 69, which prohibits threats and violent conduct when either activity constitutes an attempt to deter an executive officer from performing his duty. The court found that appellant's threats were not protected by the First Amendment. Where speech is a willful threat to perform illegal acts, as opposed to an exchange of ideas, political hyperbole, etc., as it falls outside the First Amendment. Although appellant's words alone might not constitute a threat of unlawful violence, his conduct gave context to the threatening speech which was intended to deter the firefighters and deputies from their duty, i.e., communication of a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.
Opinion Date: 6/22/2012 , DAR #: 8603
Case Holding:
Threats to perform an illegal act to prevent an executive officer from performing his duty, even where unaccompanied by physical violence, are not protected by the First Amendment. When firefighters came to appellants property to extinguish a fire, appellant argued with the captain and cursed firefighters coming to his aid. He threw a fire hose out of his backyard, clenched his fists, paced back and forth, and then lifted his shirt to reveal his gang tattoos. When back-up law enforcement arrived, he retreated to his house. He was convicted of seven counts of Penal Code section 69, which prohibits threats and violent conduct when either activity constitutes an attempt to deter an executive officer from performing his duty. The court found that appellant's threats were not protected by the First Amendment. Where speech is a willful threat to perform illegal acts, as opposed to an exchange of ideas, political hyperbole, etc., as it falls outside the First Amendment. Although appellant's words alone might not constitute a threat of unlawful violence, his conduct gave context to the threatening speech which was intended to deter the firefighters and deputies from their duty, i.e., communication of a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.
In this case, it was not necessary
for the court to sua sponte instruct the jury that the threat had to be a
serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm as such an instruction
could have confused the jury by suggesting a requirement that the victim in
fact believed that the threat would be carried out, as such a requirement does
not exist.
Not all speech is considered free speech. If you are charged with violating California Penal Code section 69, contact attorney George Derieg immediately.
www.eastbayattorney.com
George Derieg
Affordable, Aggressive, Experience.
510-355-2747
marijuana lawyers
dui attorneys
drug lawyers
misdemeanor attorneys
warrant lawyer
dui lawyers oakland
theft lawyers
criminal lawyers oakland
dui lawyer oakland
dui defense alameda ca
drunk driving lawyer
criminal defense lawyers oakland
criminal defense attorney oakland ca
theft lawyer
criminal lawyer alameda
criminal lawyers
criminal defense attorneys oakland
criminal attorney alameda ca
criminal appeal lawyers
dui lawyer alameda
drug trafficking lawyer
criminal attorneys oakland
No comments:
Post a Comment