People v. Eaves

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN EAVES, Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B324674

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

April 2, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County No. 2022011755 of Ventura Ryan J Wright, Judge

Peter S. Westacott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BALTODANO, J.

Michael Allen Eaves appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of stalking (Pen. Code,^[1] § 646.9, subd. (a)) and making criminal threats (§ 422). The trial court sentenced him to the middle term of two years on each conviction, staying the sentence on the latter pursuant to section 654. Eaves contends: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions, (2) his criminal threats conviction must be vacated due to instructional error, and (3) the matter must be remanded for resentencing because the court did not consider mitigating circumstances when it imposed middle-term sentences. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John Raitt and his family have lived next door to Eaves since 2014. Initially, the Raitts did not have issues with Eaves. But in 2021, Eaves began to spray a horse path in front of the Raitt home, causing a safety hazard. Raitt reported the matter to the homeowners association (HOA), and later confronted Eaves directly. Eaves said that he could "do whatever the fuck [he] want[ed]." Raitt explained that Eaves was damaging his property and that the HOA might blame him for the damage. Eaves said, "Fuck the HOA. They can go fuck themselves."

On another occasion, Eaves leaned over a fence and yelled "I'm going to knock on your fucking door and I'm going to fucking kill everyone in the house." Raitt hoped Eaves was yelling at someone on the telephone, and worried for his family's safety.

In July, Raitt walked out to his car so he could pick up his son from a music lesson. As Raitt walked toward the car, Eaves yelled, "I'm going to fuck you in your fucking ass until you die, motherfucker." Raitt asked if Eaves was talking to him. Eaves replied, "Yeah motherfucker, I'm talking to you. I'm going to fuck you in your fucking ass until you fucking die." Raitt asked Eaves if he had a problem. Eaves said, "Yeah, you motherfucker. You're my fucking problem. I'm going to fuck you in your ass until you die." Raitt got in his car and drove away.

After this threat Raitt feared for the safety of his family members, who were already scared of Eaves due to his prior actions. Raitt's fear thereafter became "all consuming"; he believed Eaves could attack him at any moment. Raitt reported the incident to the police and began to avoid Eaves, trying to deal with him only through the HOA or law enforcement.

After the July incident, Eaves escalated his threatening behavior toward Raitt. He sped his truck on the path in front of Raitt's home, despite its frequent use by Raitt and his family. Eaves frequently called Raitt a "fat queer fuck" and threatened to "fuck [Raitt] in the ass until [he] die[d]." He threw knives and hatchets at a shipping container in his yard.

Raitt installed security cameras in August 2021 so he could record Eaves's threats. A series of September videos showed Eaves "flipp[ing] [Raitt] off" and "grabb[ing] his junk." He threatened to "kick [Raitt's] ass" and "beat [his] fucking ass." Eaves said he would "cut [Raitt's] neck off" and would "take [Raitt's] phone and shove it up [his] fuckin' ass." He also threw things at Raitt and his car. Raitt called police to report the incident.

In another video Eaves called Raitt a "walking dead man." In another he said that "[e]very fucking one of you is going to die" and that Raitt was "a dead motherfucker." He threatened to put a pole "through [his] forehead" and something "up [his] ass" and to cut a hole in Raitt's door. He hit golf balls into Raitt's yard and told him to leave town. Raitt and his family had trouble sleeping amidst these threats, and discussed whether they should move.

Eaves's threatening behaviors continued into 2022. He said to Raitt: "I'm gonna to kill you, motherfucker. I'll fuckin' kill you. You little bitch, fuck." He threatened to "fucking put a bullet" in Raitt and said that his family's names would be in the news when he killed them. He also threatened them with arson.

At trial, Eaves testified that he suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder because he had been a witness in a murder trial. His family's lives were threatened, and they had to be relocated. As a result, Eaves was in "a very emotional state" when interacting with Raitt. He lacked the "proper tools to put that together right away without someone else's help."

Eaves said that a "majority" of Raitt's videos showed him "trying to work through [his] own problems." He was unaware anyone was listening to him. He felt that his "whole life was breaking down" after his children stopped talking to him.

Eaves said he was not directing his insults and threatening language at Raitt. He admitted that he had gone onto Raitt's property with his hose on one occasion, but denied that he ever engaged in his loud verbal "self-therapy" while there. He also admitted that he threw axes and knives on his own property. He did this as a form of anger management, and not to intimidate the Raitts.

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of the evidence

Eaves contends there was insufficient evidence to support either of his convictions. Our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence-"evidence that is reasonable credible, and of solid value"-supports the judgment. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) We view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the prosecution[,] and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence." (Ibid.)" 'Conflicts and even testimony that is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the . . . jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.'" (Ibid., alterations omitted.) Reversal" 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict[s]." (Ibid.)

1. Stalking

Eaves argues his stalking conviction must be vacated because prosecutors presented insufficient evidence that he was subjectively aware that the statements he made to Raitt were of a threatening nature. He bases his argument on the Supreme Court's recent rejection of Colorado's stalking statute. (See Counterman v. Colorado (2023) 600 U.S. 66.) In that case, the defendant "was prosecuted in accordance with an objective standard." (Id. at p. 82.) Prosecutors "had to show only that a reasonable person would understand [the defendant's] statements as threats"; they were not required to demonstrate "any awareness on his part that the statements could be understood that way." (Ibid.) That lack of a subjective element violated the First Amendment. (Counterman, at p. 82.)

But California's stalking statute is different. Under California law, "[a]ny person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for [their] safety[] or the safety of [their] immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking." (§ 646.9, subd. (a), italics added.) Thus, for a threat to be credible there must be evidence that the defendant harbored "the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for [their] safety or the safety of [their] family." (Id., subd. (g).)

As this definition makes clear, California's stalking statute includes the subjective element that was missing in Counterman, supra, 600 U.S. 66: For his threat to be credible Eaves had to not only understand that his statements to Raitt could be understood as threatening; he had to intend that they place Raitt in fear. (People v. Lopez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 436, 453-454.) The trial court told the jury as much when it instructed them pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1301. And jurors found sufficient evidence of this subjective element. Eaves's stalking conviction thus does not violate the First Amendment.

2. Criminal threats

"[N]ot all threats are criminal." (In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 630.) Rather, a criminal threats conviction under section 422 requires proof that: (1) "the defendant 'willfully threatened to commit a crime [that] will result in death or great bodily injury to another person' "; (2) "the defendant made the threat 'with the specific intent that the statement [was] to be taken as a threat, even if there [was] no intent of actually carrying it out' "; (3) the threat was," 'on its face and under the circumstances in which it was made, so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened[] a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat' "; (4) "the threat actually caused the person threatened 'to be in sustained fear for [their] own safety or for [their] immediate family's safety' "; and (5) "the threatened person's fear was 'reasonable' under the circumstances." (People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227-228, alterations omitted.) Eaves argues there was insufficient evidence of the last three of these elements.

Eaves is incorrect. As to the third element," 'the...