People v. Ford
Decision Date | 11 August 1983 |
Docket Number | Cr. 5922 |
Citation | 145 Cal.App.3d 985,193 Cal.Rptr. 684 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tony FORD, Defendant and Appellant. /F795. |
Defendant appeals following conviction after jury trial of attempting to prevent a witness from testifying by means of threat (Pen.Code, § 136.1). We reverse.
I. FACTS
Defendant and two others were engaged in a preliminary hearing on 16 felonies, mainly robberies and burglaries. When Alvin Scott, who had turned state's evidence, finished his testimony, he was directed to a jury room. Scott was standing in the hall doorway of this room when, the proceedings having been adjourned for the day, defendant Ford and his codefendants exited the courtroom and were being escorted down the hall by the bailiffs, away from Scott, toward the elevator. Ford turned and looked at Scott and yelled, "You punk mother fucker, we'll get you, you've got kids." Defendant was 50 to 60 feet from Scott when he made the threat.
The bailiff who was escorting the defendants to the elevator, the sheriff's detective who was the investigating officer and who had just testified, and an officer in a room off the hall on an unrelated matter, all heard the defendant yell. There was no testimony that any one else was in that hallway other than the defendants, the bailiffs and Scott.
Scott, who had returned from out of state to testify at the preliminary hearing, had a child living in Fresno county. Scott had known the defendant for over six years and, as a result of defendant's statement, felt threatened and feared defendant's relatives might try to carry out defendant's threat. Some of defendant's relatives were at the preliminary hearing when Scott testified. Scott did eventually testify at the trial.
II. SHOULD DEFENDANT'S 995 MOTION HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF HIS LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM? 2
III. WAS THE AMENDMENT TO THE INFORMATION IMPROPER?
IV. WAS DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE?
Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. There is no merit to this position.
The test on appeal is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but whether the evidence could persuade any reasonable jury to have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.):
"[T]he court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence--that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (At p. 578, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)
Furthermore, to reverse a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence it must "clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there substantial evidence to support it." (In re Frederick G. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 353, 363, 157 Cal.Rptr. 769.)
The uncontradicted testimony of Scott and the three sheriff's officers establish that defendant made the threat to Scott.
Defendant claims the information charges him with preventing Scott from testifying in the municipal court proceedings. Since Scott did in fact testify in municipal court, defendant asserts he cannot be guilty of preventing testimony which was actually given.
Defendant's contention has been considered and rejected in People v. Thomas (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 511, 513, footnote 3, 148 Cal.Rptr. 52:
Similarly, in this case, Scott also was a potential future witness. There is no indication on the record that he was excused from giving further testimony.
The words "You punk mother fucker, we'll get you, you've got kids," have more than a plain meaning, as do all words. These words also carry with them an inherent baggage of connotation which plainly suggests to the auditor, "You are in trouble for testifying so do not let it happen again or things will only get worse." The jury could interpret defendant's remarks to Scott as a warning or threat not to testify in the future.
V. SHOULD THE TRIAL COURT HAVE INSTRUCTED THAT THREATENING A WITNESS IS A SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME?
The jury was instructed on general intent. There was no request for an instruction on specific intent, but defendant argues that the court had a sua sponte duty to so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Pettie
...or revenge for Delgadillo's past report to the police .To support this argument, defendants rely on People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 193 Cal.Rptr. 684 ( Ford ). Ford was a defendant at a preliminary hearing when he threatened a witness who had just testified against him. Ford yelle......
-
People v. Young
...dissuade a witness from testifying. (People v. Lyons (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1456, 1460-1462, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 763; People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 989-990, 193 Cal.Rptr. 684.) Defendant complains that the prosecution did not prove that he had the requisite specific intent. He argues t......
-
People v. Serrano
...68, 71, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 160.)Another example where such error was not held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 193 Cal.Rptr. 684. There, the defendant was charged under section 136.1, subdivision (c), after telling a witness who testified in a pre......
-
People v. Morales
...an utterance is "a simple angry statement of impending revenge" or retaliation, section 136.1 has not been violated. (People v. Ford (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 985, 989-990.) Defendants contend such was the situation here. It is true the statements shown by the evidence could be interpreted in t......