People v. A.G. (In re A.G.)
| Decision Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | B304063 |
| Citation | 58 Cal.App.5th 647,272 Cal.Rptr.3d 602 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE A.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.G., Defendant and Appellant. |
Courtney M. Selan, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Columbine. Sandy Hook. Virginia Tech. Marjory Stoneman Douglas. These are but a few of a staggering number of American schools where fatal mass shootings have occurred. Seared into the national consciousness, their names evoke a panoply of strong emotions: grief for innocent students and school staff killed or wounded; sympathy for those who loved them; and fear of future tragedies at more schools.
In this case, the juvenile court found defendant A.G., a minor high school student, made criminal threats when he posted a photo of a realistic looking replica gun on his Snapchat account, which was visible to about 60 people he identified as friends. The photo bore the caption,
On appeal, A.G. contends, as he did below, that he was "joking" when he posted his "story" on Snapchat, and insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. The juvenile court, however, rejected A.G.'s testimony that he was joking as not credible and inconsistent with what A.G. told a school police detective who investigated the threats. We defer, as we must, to the trial judge's credibility determinations. ( People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314, 270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643.) And we note there is nothing funny about threatening to take a gun to school in any event. Because the juvenile court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
The Los Angeles County District attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging A.G. made a criminal threat against a minor we will refer to as "D.J." ( Penal Code 1 § 422, count 2) and a teacher named Carol Henriquez ( § 422, count 3) and attempted a third criminal threat ( §§ 422, 664 ; count 1). A.G. denied all three allegations. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found counts 2 and 3 true and dismissed count one for insufficient evidence. The juvenile court ordered A.G. to six months of probation. A.G. timely appealed.
Snapchat is a phone application that, among other things, allows users to post "stories." A story is a photograph or video posted by a Snapchat user.
The user can add captions and other effects to the photographs and videos. A user can identify "friends" on Snapchat. Once users become friends, they can see each other's posted stories. The stories expire from the application after 24 hours, but a user can delete the story before the time is up. The stories can be set to be private so they can be only viewed by some people. If the story is public, it can be sent to users who are not friends of the user who posted the story. Snapchat also allows users to send individualized photos or videos directly to people. Snapchat users can also chat with each other within the application and can partake in group chats. Texts, photos, and videos can all be sent using the chat function.
D.J., a high school senior at Linda Marquez School for Social Justice ("Linda Marquez"), had the Snapchat application on her phone. At approximately 9:00 pm on March 3, 2019, she received a screenshot of A.G.'s story through a group chat. The story showed an image of what appeared to be a gun with the caption D.J. testified that she was worried when she saw the story because she knew school shootings happened regularly.
D.J. discussed her fear with her friends in the group chat and told them they should tell a teacher. D.J. and other students in the group chat forwarded A.G.'s story to a Linda Marquez teacher, Carol Henriquez, using the Remind application. The Remind application allows teachers and students to communicate via text. D.J. told Henriquez that she did not know the name of the sender because she did not recognize him by his username.
After notifying Henriquez, D.J. looked at the screenshot and realized the sender was her friend on Snapchat. She went to the user's profile and viewed the story. D.J. later discovered the user was A.G. based on the conversation in the group chat and by checking her contact list. D.J. knew A.G. because they previously had a class together during their freshman year. She believed A.G. was a student at her school at the time the story was posted because she also had a class with him earlier that year.
A few hours later, D.J. was alerted that A.G had posted a second story and she went to his profile to view it. The story was a black screen captioned: D.J. testified that the second story did not change how she felt. She still believed the first story was a threat to her and others at her school. D.J. stated that she did not recognize the word "gum" when she originally saw the first story. She was instead focused on the photograph of a gun. She also testified the word "gum" did not change how she felt about the image because the letters "m" and "n" are similar and could be easily mistaken.
Henriquez provided police with D.J.'s phone number and they contacted D.J. the same night. D.J. told police about A.G.'s story and that she was worried a school shooting would happen. D.J. went to school the next day and felt nervous.
On March 3, 2019, Henriquez was a tenth grade English teacher at Linda Marquez. She received a message from her student, D.J., on the Remind application. The message included the image posted by A.G. Henriquez testified she felt fear, concern, and confusion when she saw the image. She was afraid the image was a threat of a school shooting and felt she and her students were in danger.
Henriquez notified police of the image because, as a teacher, she was a mandated reporter. She testified that even if she was not a mandated reporter, she still would have told police about the image because she was afraid for herself and her students. Henriquez was asked by police to go to the station. Once there, she showed police the image and filed a report.
Henriquez testified her fear and concern was ongoing even after she reported the image to police because she was not sure what would happen the following day at school. Even though Henriquez received the second image posted by A.G., she still felt afraid because of the commonplace occurrence of school shootings at high schools.
Once Henriquez saw a photo of A.G., she recognized that he had been her student. Henriquez and A.G. had a regular teacher/student relationship and A.G. had never displayed any animosity towards her.
Detective Jeong is employed by the Los Angeles School Police Department. On the day after A.G. posted his stories, Detective Jeong went to Simon Rodia Continuation School ("Simon Rodia") where A.G. was present. After A.G. waived his Miranda rights, Jeong interviewed him. A.G. admitted sending both Snapchat stories. Detective Jeong asked A.G. "why he would do such a thing." A.G. responded, per the Detective, "he likes to see reaction in people, what people might say." A.G. seemed apologetic, and denied any intention to carry out a school shooting or threaten anyone. But he did not say he intended the initial Snapchat story as a joke. Detective Jeong then went to A.G.'s friend's home where the replica gun was located, and examined it. He confirmed it was not an actual gun.
A.G. had approximately 60 friends on Snapchat. Some of those friends currently went to school with him, and some had gone to school with him in the past. He had gone years without speaking to some of his Snapchat friends. At the time of the post, A.G. was a student at Simon Rodia Continuation School. He had attended Linda Marquez until transferring to Simon Rodia earlier that year.
A.G. testified he posted the image on Snapchat because he was being immature, and he meant for the story to be a joke. A.G. further testified he did not intend for the post to be taken as a threat. Instead, he thought his friends would understand the post was a joke because they understood his sense of humor. The gun, which was fake, belonged to A.G.'s friend. He understood people were taking the post seriously because a friend notified him. He posted the second message to calm the situation down. He hoped recipients of the second story would interpret the alleged drug use as an excuse as to why he posted something "dumb." He confirmed he was not on Xanax or any other drug at the time he posted the stories. He was not asked about nor did he volunteer any reason why the caption on the photo said "gum" rather than "gun".
On appeal, A.G. contends counts two and three are unsupported by substantial evidence. Specifically, A.G. contends the evidence failed to establish: (1) he intended his Snapchat post to be understood as a threat; (2) he willfully threatened to unlawfully kill or cause great bodily injury to anyone; (3) he intended to threaten D.J. or Henriquez specifically; (4) any alleged threat was unequivocal or unambiguous to reasonably sustain fear in either D.J. or Henriquez; or (5) any threat to D.J. or Henriquez was sufficiently immediate to place either of them in fear. We reject these arguments.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo
...are able to view each other's private content and directly interact via the social media application. See In re A.G., 58 Cal. App. 5th 647, 651, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 602 (2020).4 Even where an account is private, a user may opt to make particular stories available to the public. Hamburger, Snapc......
- People v. J.D. (In re J.D.)
- People v. J.R. (In re J.R.)
- People v. Zinman