Error and/or relief
The defendant appeals his conviction of violating Penal Code section 422. We reverse the judgment because there was no substantial evidence that the victim of the crime experienced sustained fear.
First Holding:
Elements of section 422 include: that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, and that the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.
Authority:
PEN 422(a)
People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227–228
Second Holding:
Sustained fear must occur over a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory. Ordinarily, sustained fear lasts beyond the moments of the encounter.
Authority:
People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942
In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1140
Third Holding:
Courts have held that 15 minutes satisfies the sustained fear requirement.
Authority:
People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942
People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 201
People v. Allen (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156
Fourth Holding:
Under circumstances not applicable here a shorter duration of fear, or fear confined to the length of the encounter, may be sufficient. A victim may experience sustained fear even though the fear exists only during the incident itself. In Brugman, the incident was a drawn-out ordeal. Similarly, if the circumstances are extreme enough—such as when a person believes they will be killed imminently—even one minute can be enough time for fear to be sustained.
Authority:
People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 634
People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349
Fifth Holding:
In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we 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. In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Reasonableness is the ultimate standard under the substantial evidence rule.
Authority:
People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307
People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250