skip to Main Content
Name: People v. Lipsett
Case #: F065496
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/10/2014
Summary

Criminal threats conviction affirmed where defendant did not direct threats to the victim, but to a third party. Appellant was charged with carjacking, criminal threats and other offenses/allegations for forcibly taking the victim’s dirt bike. During the theft, the victim engaged in a tug of war with appellant over the bike, during which appellant shouted to his codefendant, “Shoot him; shoot him; shoot the [victim’s] dog.” On appeal appellant claimed the criminal threats conviction was unsupported because he did not direct the threat to the victim. Held: Affirmed. Penal Code section 422 provides no exception for threats that are “technically” directed to third parties; it requires that the defendant intend the statement to be taken as a threat by the victim. Here, appellant intended his statements to scare the victim into retreating with his dog so appellant could steal the bike and escape. This constituted criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422).