Page 3
C.A. Affirms Conviction of Man Who Threatened Judges
Opinion Says Requirement, Established by Case Law, That Defendant Specifically Intended for Threat to Be Communicated to Victim Is Not Separate Element of Crime Deserving of Jury Instruction
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that when criminal threats are made through a third party the judicially created requirement that the prosecution show that the sender intended for the messages to be communicated to the victim is not a separate element of the crime and is instead encompassed in the specific intent that the statement be taken as a warning.
The question arose in an appeal by Issac Jones Jr., who was convicted of 19 counts of making, or attempting to make, criminal threats in violation of Penal Code §76 against various judges of the Central Justice Center of the Orange Superior Court. Jones’ conviction relates to the receipt by the facility of a chemically laden package that included written death threats to dozens of judicial officers assigned to the center.
Penal Code §76 provides that “[e]very person who knowingly and willingly threatens the life of, or threatens serious bodily harm to, any elected public official…with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, and the apparent ability to carry out that threat by any means, is guilty of a public offense.”
A total of three suspicious packages were sent to the Santa Ana center. The first was delivered by mail, on June 6, 2018, and contained approximately 100 pages of legal paperwork, including various blue documents stamped with red thumbprints, which is an indication of allegiance to “sovereign citizen” ideology.
Individuals who identify as “sovereign citizens” do not accept the authority of the U.S. government.
On Nov. 21, 2018, Jones hand-delivered a second package containing similar paperwork to courtroom C5, presided over by Supervising Judge Kimberly Menninger. Inside were documents saying “Public Officers Beware!” and demanding the immediate release of Jones’ nephew, who at the time was an inmate in an Orange County jail facility, and the payment of $65 million.
Chemical Package
About two months later, on Jan. 14, 2019, Jones sent a third package to the Central Justice Center. Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Scott Strong examined the box and was immediately overcome by fumes from a chemical agent emanating from inside the box, suffering burning sensations to his lips, throat, and lungs similar to the effects of pepper spray.
The box was left in an empty warehouse for months to let it air out before deputies again attempted to examine the contents. Inside were papers listing the names of judges on a chart titled “Offender List Most Wanted.”
Each judge was identified as having been convicted of “PRIVACY AND HIGH TREASON” and the notice demanded “DEATH BY HANGING UNTEL [sic] DEAD.” The judges’ names were partially obscured due to a copier flaw, but they could be identified because the courtroom number was also listed.
Deputies with the judicial protection unit of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department notified each judge listed in the documents. The opinion does not name the judges nor is the criminal complaint available on the Orange Superior Court website.
Jones was arrested on March 27, 2019. The case was transferred to San Diego Superior Court for trial.
Following a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced by San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel B. Goldstein to 12 years in the county jail
On appeal, Jones challenged his conviction on the grounds that the jury was not instructed on, and there was insufficient evidence to establish, the requirement that he specifically intended that those who received the packages would convey the threats to the judges in question.
Justice Maurice Sanchez authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, affirming the judgment of conviction. Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore and Justice Thomas M. Goethals joined in the opinion.
Third-Party Threats
Sanchez acknowledged the 2002 Third District decision of In re Ryan D., written by then-Presiding Justice Arthur G. Scotland (now retired), in which the court held that “where the accused did not personally communicate a threat to the victim, it must be shown that he specifically intended that the threat be conveyed to the victim.”
However, the justice disagreed with Jones’ assertion that this requirement is an additional element of the crime, saying:
“While we agree that the law set forth in Ryan D….is correctly stated, Ryan D. does not create a new element of the crime. Rather, it clarifies how the mens rea logically applies when the threat is communicated indirectly….This is undoubtedly a sound deduction from the language of the statute, but it is just that: a proposition already encompassed by the statutory language. It is not a separate element.”
Unpersuaded by Jones’ assertion that the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that “[f]or third-party threats, the defendant must have the specific intent that the third-party communicate the threat to the individual victims,” he wrote:
“The supplemental instruction suggested by Jones on appeal may well have been an appropriate pinpoint instruction in this case. However, he never requested it. Accordingly, the claim of instructional error is forfeited.”
Substantial Evidence
Jones also contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he intended that the threatening messages be conveyed to the judges, pointing to the fact that the names were partially obscured.
Rejecting that argument, Sanchez remarked:
“[T]he jury could easily conclude from the document itself that the obscuring of the names was not intentional but instead was an error in the copying process. The judges were easily identified by the partial names together with their courtroom and phone numbers.”
He continued:
“But even if the obscured names created some ambiguity about Jones’s intent, the remainder of the evidence overwhelmingly supported an inference that Jones intended the threats to reach the judges. First and foremost, the box was sent to the courthouse. Not only was it sent to the courthouse, but it was addressed to the supervising judge, who oversaw the operations of the threatened judges….We can think of no reason why Jones would send the box to the courthouse other than to ensure that it was seen by the judges.”
The jurist added:
“[T]he box was laced with a chemical agent. This would ensure that the threat would be taken seriously and, therefore, communicated to the individual judges….Jones had a motive to scare the judges: he was evidently displeased with how the justice system had treated his nephew.”
The case is People v. Jones, G062464.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company