Supreme Court of California Justia
Docket No. S111780
In re George T.

Filed 7/22/04

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

In re GEORGE T., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S111780
v.
) Ct.App.
6
H023080
GEORGE T.,
Santa Clara County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. J122537

We consider in this case whether a high school student made a criminal
threat by giving two classmates a poem labeled “Dark Poetry,” which recites in
part, “I am Dark, Destructive, & Dangerous. I slap on my face of happiness but
inside I am evil!! For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school.
So parents watch your children cuz I’m BACK!!” For the reasons below, we
conclude that the ambiguous nature of the poem, along with the circumstances
surrounding its dissemination, fail to establish that the poem constituted a criminal
threat.
1


I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Fifteen-year-old George T. (minor) had been a student at Santa Teresa High
School in Santa Clara County for approximately two weeks when on Friday,
March 16, 2001, toward the end of his honors English class, he approached fellow
student Mary S. and asked her, “Is there a poetry class here?” Minor then handed
Mary three sheets of paper and told her, “[r]ead these.” Mary did so. The first
sheet of paper contained a note stating, “These poems describe me and my
feelings. Tell me if they describe you and your feelings.” The two other sheets of
paper contained poems. Mary read only one of the poems, which was labeled
“Dark Poetry” and entitled “Faces”:
Who are these faces around me?
Where did they come from?
They would probably become the
next doctors or loirs or something. All
really
intelligent and ahead in their
game. I wish I had a choice on
what I want to be like they do.
All so happy and vagrant. Each
origonal in their own way. They
make me want to puke. For I am
Dark, Destructive, & Dangerous. I
slap on my face of happiness but
inside I am evil!! For I can be
the next kid to bring guns to
kill students at school. So parents
watch your children cuz I’m BACK!!
by:
Julius
AKA
Angel1
Minor had a “straight face,” not “show[ing] any emotion, neither happy or sad or
angry or upset,” when he handed the poems to Mary.

1
Minor went by the name “Julius”; misspelled words are in original.
2


Upon reading the “Faces” poem, Mary became frightened, handed the
poems back to minor, and immediately left the campus in fear. After she informed
her parents about the poem, her father called the school, but it was closed. Mary
testified she did not know minor well, but they were on “friendly terms.” When
asked why she felt minor gave her the poem to read, she responded: “I thought
maybe because the first day he came into our class, I approached him because
that’s the right thing to do” and because she continued to be nice to him.
After Mary handed the poems back to minor, minor approached Erin S. and
Natalie P., students minor had met during his two weeks at Santa Teresa High
School. Erin had been introduced to minor a week prior and had subsequently
spoken with him on only three or four occasions, whereas Natalie considered
herself minor’s friend and had come to know him well during their long after-
school conversations, which generally lasted between an hour to an hour and a half
and included discussions of poetry. Minor handed Erin a “folded up” piece of
paper and asked her to read it. He also handed a similarly folded piece of paper to
Natalie, who was standing with Erin. Because Erin was late for class, she only
pretended to read the poem to be polite, but did not actually read it. She placed
the unread poem in the pocket of her jacket.
The next day, Saturday, Mary e-mailed her English teacher William
Rasmussen to report her encounter with minor.2 She wrote: “I’m sorry to bother
you over the weekend, but I don’t think this should wait until Monday. During 6th
period on Friday, 3/16, the guy in our class called julius (actually his name is
Theodore?) gave me two poems to read. He explained to me that these poems

2
Rasmussen had been absent from school on Friday, and a substitute teacher
was instructing the English class when minor asked Mary to read his poems.
3


‘described him and his feelings,’ and asked if I ‘felt the same way.’ [¶] I was
surprised to find that the poems were about how he is ‘nice on the outside,’ and
how he’s ‘going to be the next person to bring a gun to school and kill random
people.’ I told him to bring the poems to room 315 to Ms. Gonzalez because [she]
is in charge of poetry club. He said he would but I don’t know for sure if he did.”
Mary remained in fear throughout the weekend because she understood the poem
to be personally threatening to her, as a student. Asked why she felt the poem was
a threat, Mary responded: “It’s obvious he thought of himself as a dark,
destructive, and dangerous person. And if he was willing to admit that about
himself and then also state that he could be the next person to bring guns and kill
students, then I’d say that he was threatening.” She understood the term “dark
poetry” to mean “angry threats; any thoughts that aren’t positive.”
Rasmussen called Mary on Sunday regarding her e-mail. Mary sounded
very shaken during the conversation, and based on this and on what she stated
about the contents of the poem, Rasmussen contacted the school principal and the
police. He read “Faces” for the first time during the jurisdictional hearing and,
upon reading it, felt personally threatened by it because, according to Rasmussen,
“He’s saying he’s going to come randomly shoot.” His understanding of “dark
poetry” was that it entailed “the concept of death and causing and inflicting a
major bodily pain and suffering . . . . There is something foreboding about it.”
On Sunday, March 18, officers from the San Jose Police Department went
to minor’s uncle’s house, where minor and his father were residing. An officer
asked minor, who opened the door when the officers arrived, whether there were
any guns in the house. Minor “nodded.” Minor’s uncle was surprised that minor
was aware of his guns, and handed the officers a .38-caliber handgun and a rifle.
When asked about the poems disseminated at school, minor handed an officer a
4
piece of paper he took from his pocket. The paper contained a poem entitled,
“Faces in My Head” which recited:

Look at all these faces around me.
They look so vagrant.
They have their whole lives ahead of them.
They have their own indivisaulity.
Those kind of people make me wanna puke.
For I am a slave to very evil masters.
I have no future that I choose for myself.
I feel as if I am going to go crazy.
Probably I would be the next high school killer.
A little song keeps playing in my head.
My daddy is worth a dollar not even 100 cents.
As I look at these faces around me
I wonder why r they so happy.
What do they have that I don’t.
Am I the only one with the messed up mind.
Then I realize, I’m cursed!!
As with the poem entitled “Faces,” this poem was labeled “dark poetry” but it was
not shown or given to anyone at school. Minor drafted “Faces in My Head” that
morning in an attempt to capture what he had written in “Faces” because he
wanted a copy for his poetry collection. Minor was taken into custody.
Police officers went to the school the following Monday to investigate the
dissemination of the poem. Erin was summoned to the vice-principal’s office and
asked whether minor had given her any notes. She responded in the affirmative,
realized that the poem was still in the pocket of her jacket, and retrieved it. The
paper contained a poem entitled “Faces,” which was the same poem given to
Mary. Upon reading the poem for the first time in the vice-principal’s office, Erin
became terrified and broke down in tears, finding the poem to be a personal threat
to her life. She testified that she was not in the poetry club and had no interest in
the subject.
5


Natalie, who testified on behalf of minor, recalled that minor said, “[r]ead
this” as he handed her and Erin the pieces of paper. The folded-up sheet of paper
Natalie received contained a poem entitled, “Who Am I.” When a police officer
went to Natalie’s home to inquire about the poem minor had given her on Friday,
Natalie was not completely cooperative and truthful, telling the officer that the
poem was about water and dolphins and that she believed it was a love poem. The
police retrieved the poem from Natalie’s trash can and although it was torn, some
of it could still be deciphered: “ . . . I created? . . . cause it really . . . feel as if . . .
stolen from . . . of peace . . . Taken to a place that you hate. Your locked up and
when your let out of your cage it is to perform. Not able to be yourself and always
hiding & thinking would people like me if I behaved differently? by Julius AKA
Angel.”
Natalie did not feel threatened by the poem, rather it made her “feel sad”
because “[i]t was kind of lonely.” She testified that “dark poetry is . . . relevant to
like pure emotions, like sadness, loneliness, hate or just like pure emotions.
Sometimes it tells a story, like a dark story.” Based on her extended conversations
with minor, Natalie found him to be “mild and calm and very serene” and did not
consider him to be violent.
Minor testified the poem “Faces” was not intended to be a threat and,
because Erin and Natalie were his friends, he did not think they would have taken
his poems as such. He thought of poetry as art and stated that he was very much
interested in the subject, particularly as a medium to describe “emotions instead of
acting them out.” He wrote “Faces” during his honors English class on the day he
showed it to Mary and Erin. Minor was having a bad day as a consequence of
having forgotten to ask his parents for lunch money and having to forgo lunch that
day, and because he was unable to locate something in his backpack. He had
6
many thoughts going through his head, so he decided to write them down as a way
of getting them out. The poem “Who Am I,” which was given to Natalie, was
written the same day as “Faces,” but was written during the lunch period. Neither
poem was intended to be a threat. Instead they were “just creativity.”
Minor and his friends frequently joked about the school shootings in
Columbine, Colorado.3 They would jokingly say, “I’m going to be the next
Columbine kid.” Minor testified that Natalie and Erin had been present when he
and some of his friends had joked about Columbine, with someone stating that
“I’ll probably be the next Columbine killer,” and indicating who would be killed
and who would be spared. Given this past history, minor believed Natalie and
Erin would understand the poems as jokes.
The poems were labeled “dark poetry” to inform readers that they were
exactly that and, minor testified, “if anybody was supposed to read this poem, or
let’s say if my mom ever found my poem or something of that nature, I would like
them to know that it was dark poetry. Dark poetry is usually just an expression.
It’s creativity. It is not like you’re actually going to do something like that,
basically.”
Asked why he wrote, “For I can be the next kid to bring guns to school and
kill students,” minor responded: “The San Diego killing[4] was about right around

3
This reference is to the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in
Colorado involving two student shooters that resulted in the death of 12 fellow
students and one faculty member. (See Fleming v. Jefferson County School
District R-1
(10th Cir. 2002) 298 F.3d 918.)
4
On March 5, 2001, a student at Santana High School in Santee, California,
shot and killed two students and wounded 13 others. (See Angel, The School
Shooters: Surprise! Boys Are Far More Violent Than Girls and Gender
Stereotypes Underlie School Violence
(2001) 27 Ohio N.U. L.Rev. 485, 490-491.)
7


this time. So since I put the three Ds – dark, destructive, and dangerous – and
since I said – ‘I am evil,’ and since I was talking about people around me – faces –
how I said, like, how they would make me want to – did I say that? – well, even if
I didn’t – yeah, I did say that. Okay. So, um, I said from all these things, it
sounds like, for I can be the next Columbine kid, basically. So why not add that
in? And so, ‘Parents, watch your children, because I’m back,’ um, I just wanted to
– kind of like a dangerous ending, like a – um, just like ending a poem that would
kind of get you, like, – like, whoa, that’s really something.”
Minor stated that he did not know Mary and did not give her any poems.
However, he was unable to explain how Mary was able to recount the contents of
the “Faces” poem.
On cross-examination, minor conceded that he had had difficulties in his
two previous schools, including being disciplined for urinating on a wall at his
first school and had been asked to leave his second school for plagiarizing from
the Internet. He explained that the urination incident was caused by a doctor-
verified bladder problem. He denied having any ill will toward the school district,
but conceded when pressed by the prosecutor that he felt the schools “had it in for
me.”
An amended petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was
filed against minor, alleging minor made three criminal threats in violation of
Penal Code section 422.5 The victims of the alleged threats were Mary (count 1),
Erin (count 3), and Rasmussen (count 2).

5
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
8


Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true
the allegations with respect to Mary and Erin, but dismissed the allegation with
respect to Rasmussen. At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudicated minor a
ward of the court and ordered a 100-day commitment in juvenile hall. Minor
appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile
court’s finding that he made criminal threats. Over a dissent, the Court of Appeal
affirmed the juvenile court in all respects with the exception of remanding the
matter for the sole purpose of having that court declare the offenses to be either
felonies or misdemeanors. We granted review and now reverse.
II. DISCUSSION
In People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221 (Toledo), we made clear that not
all threats are criminal and enumerated the elements necessary to prove the offense
of making criminal threats under section 422. The prosecution must prove “(1)
that the defendant ‘willfully threaten[ed] to commit a crime which will result in
death or great bodily injury to another person,’ (2) that the defendant made the
threat ‘with the specific intent that the statement . . . is to be taken as a threat, even
if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,’ (3) that the threat – which may be
‘made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device’ –
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) 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 (5)
that the threatened person’s fear was ‘reasonabl[e]’ under the circumstances.”
9
(Toledo, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 227-228, citing People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th
297, 337-340 & fn. 13.)6
Minor challenges the juvenile court’s findings that he made criminal threats
in violation of section 422 and contends that his First Amendment rights were
infringed by the court’s conclusion that his poem was a criminal threat.
We address first the threshold issue of what standard of review applies in
this case. Claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a judgment
are generally reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Under that
standard, “ ‘an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable
to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable,
credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find [the
elements of the crime] beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29
Cal.4th 515, 553, quoting People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128; see
Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317-320.) “ ‘ “If the circumstances
reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court
that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding
does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.” ’ ” (People v. Bean (1988) 46
Cal.3d 919, 933, quoting People v. Hillery (1965) 62 Cal.2d 692, 702.)

6 Section
422
provides in relevant part: “Any person who willfully threatens
to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another
person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally [or] in writing . . .
is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it was made, is 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, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or
her own safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed
one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.”
10


Minor and his supporting amici curiae7 contend that because First
Amendment interests are implicated by the determination that minor’s poem
constituted a threat, this court should employ the independent review standard,
which entails an examination of the “ ‘ “statements in issue and the circumstances
under which they were made to see . . . whether they are of a character which the
principles of the First Amendment . . . protect.” ’ ” (Harte-Hanks
Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 688-689 (Harte-
Hanks), quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 285; see
also Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485 (Bose).)
Disagreeing, the Attorney General contends this court should not depart from the
substantial evidence standard because the high court decisions cited by minor are
inapposite, and this court has already determined that section 422 is constitutional.
In Bose, the Supreme Court explained “that in cases raising First
Amendment issues [it has] repeatedly held that an appellate court has an
obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record’ in order to
make sure that ‘the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field
of free expression.’ ” (Bose, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 499, italics added, quoting New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at pp. 284-286.) Bose held that a
federal appellate court should conduct an independent review of a trier of fact’s
determination that a defendant acted with “actual malice” in the context of a

7
J.M. Coetzee, Michael Chabon, Peter Straub, Harlan Ellison, George
Garrett, Ayelet Waldman, Neil Gaiman, Jayne Lyn Stahl, Michael Rothenberg,
Julia Stein, Greg Rucka, Floyd Salas, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Northern California, Feminists for Free Expression, the Comic Book Legal
Defense Fund, the First Amendment Project, the National Coalition Against
Censorship, PEN American Center and PEN USA, and Youth Law Center.
11


defamation suit, rather than rely on the clearly-erroneous standard typically
applied to findings of fact. (Bose, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 514.)
Independent review, which “assigns to judges a constitutional responsibility
that cannot be delegated to the trier of fact, whether the factfinding function be
performed in the particular case by a jury or by a trial judge” (Bose, supra, 466
U.S. at p. 501), “is a rule of federal constitutional law” (id. at p. 510). It is
necessary “because the reaches of the First Amendment are ultimately defined by
facts it is held to embrace” and an appellate court must decide “whether a given
course of conduct falls on the near or far side of the line of constitutional
protection.” (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston, Inc. (1995) 515 U.S. 557, 567, citing Bose, supra, 466 U.S at p. 503.)
We conclude that a reviewing court should make an independent
examination of the record in a section 422 case when a defendant raises a plausible
First Amendment defense to ensure that a speaker’s free speech rights have not
been infringed by a trier of fact’s determination that the communication at issue
constitutes a criminal threat. (Bose, supra, 466 U.S. 485.) Contrary to the
Attorney General’s contention, neither Bose nor Harte-Hanks, nor any other high
court decision, limits independent review to specific First Amendment contexts.
Rather, both Bose and Harte-Hanks emphasize that the high court has engaged in
independent review in various First Amendment contexts, including “fighting
words” (Street v. New York (1969) 394 U.S. 576), “obscenity” (Jenkins v. Georgia
(1974) 418 U.S. 161; Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15), “inciting imminent
lawless action” (Hess v. Indiana (1973) 414 U.S. 105), “peaceful assembly”
(Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) 372 U.S. 229), “clear and present danger to
integrity of court” (Pennekamp v. Florida (1946) 328 U.S. 331), and “failure to
issue license for religious meeting in public park” (Niemotko v. Maryland (1951)
12
340 U.S. 268). (Harte-Hanks, supra, 491 U.S. at pp. 685-686, fn. 33; Bose, supra,
466 U.S. at pp. 505-508.) More recently, the high court applied the independent
review standard in deciding whether a parade constituted protected speech (Hurley
v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., supra, 515
U.S. 557) and whether a group “engage[d] in ‘expressive association’ ” (Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) 530 U.S. 640, 648). The high court did so
without reference to the unique nature of the specific First Amendment question
involved. What is evident is that the high court has employed the independent
review standard in varied First Amendment contexts as an added safeguard against
infringement of First Amendment rights.8
The Attorney General contends independent review is unnecessary because
true threats comprise a category of speech that is unprotected by the First
Amendment (Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343; Watts v. United States (1969)
394 U.S. 705), and argues that a fact finder’s determination that section 422 has
been violated necessarily includes a finding that the speech at issue is an
unprotected true threat. This misses the point – independent review is utilized by
a reviewing court precisely to make certain that what the government characterizes
as speech falling within an unprotected class actually does so. (Bose, supra, 466

8
Amici curiae J.M. Coetzee et al. further find support for this less deferential
standard in this court’s recent decision in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Bunner
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 889-890, in which we offered the lower court guidance on
the proper standard of review for determining whether evidence supported the
issuance of a preliminary injunction under this state’s trade secret law. We
explained, “ ‘[W]here a [f]ederal right has been denied as the result of a [factual]
finding . . . or where a conclusion of law as to a [f]ederal right and a finding of fact
are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the [f]ederal
question, to analyze the facts,’ the reviewing court must independently review
these findings.”
13


U.S. at 505 [independent review is employed “both to be sure that the speech in
question actually falls within the unprotected category and to confine the
perimeters of any unprotected category within acceptably narrow limits in an
effort to ensure that protected expression will not be inhibited”].)
Moreover, as the Bose court explained in the obscenity context, “although
under Miller v. California, [(1973) 413 U.S. 15], the question of what appeals to
‘prurient interest’ and what is ‘patently offensive’ under the community standard
obscenity test are ‘essentially questions of fact,’ [citation], we expressly
recognized the ‘ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent
review of constitutional claims when necessary,’ [citation]. We have therefore
rejected the contention that a jury finding of obscenity vel non is insulated from
review so long as the jury was properly instructed and there is some evidence to
support its findings, holding that substantive constitutional limitations govern.”
(Bose, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 506-507, italics added, fn. omitted.)
While it is certainly true, as the Attorney General contends, that a threat
falling within section 422 lies outside the bounds of First Amendment protection,
it is untrue that that fact militates against conducting an independent review. As
we explained in Toledo, supra, 26 Cal.4th 221, the current version of section 422
was enacted by the Legislature after this court held the prior version
unconstitutionally vague under the California Constitution in People v. Mirmirani
(1981) 30 Cal.3d 375. (Toledo, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 228.) The current version
of section 422 was drafted with the mandates of the First Amendment in mind,
incorporating language from a federal appellate court true-threat decision, “to
describe and limit the type of threat covered by the statute.” (Id. at p. 229, citing
United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) 534 F.2d 1020, 1027.) While Toledo has
explained the nature of our review by enumerating the necessary elements for a
14
criminal threats prosecution, independent review permits an appellate court to
ensure that the Toledo test is satisfied and that the suppression of speech is
constitutionally permissible.
In sum, the high court has applied independent review in a wide array of
First Amendment contexts and no compelling reasons exist why independent
review should not also apply in the unique circumstances presented in this case.
Independent review is particularly important in the threats context because it is a
type of speech that is subject to categorical exclusion from First Amendment
protection, similar to obscenity, fighting words, and incitement of imminent
lawless action. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is
constitutionally protected speech.” (Watts v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. at p.
707.)
Independent review is not the equivalent of de novo review “in which a
reviewing court makes an original appraisal of all the evidence to decide whether
or not it believes” the outcome should have been different. (Bose, supra, 466 U.S.
at p. 514, fn. 31.) Because the trier of fact is in a superior position to observe the
demeanor of witnesses, credibility determinations are not subject to independent
review, nor are findings of fact that are not relevant to the First Amendment issue.
(Id. at pp. 499-500; Harte-Hanks, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 688.) As noted above,
under the substantial evidence standard, the question is whether any rational trier
of fact could find the legal elements satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas
under independent review, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment
to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. Accordingly, we will defer
to the juvenile court’s credibility determinations, but will “ ‘ “make an
independent examination of the whole record” ’ ” (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., supra, 515 U.S. at pp. 567-568),
15
including a review of the constitutionally relevant facts “ ‘de novo, independently
of any previous determinations by the [juvenile court]’ ” (DVD Copy Control
Assn. v. Bunner, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 889-890, quoting McCoy v. Hearst Corp.
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 835, 842; Hurley, supra, 515 U.S. at pp. 567-568) to determine
whether minor’s poem was a criminal threat entitled to no First Amendment
protection.
As discussed above, this court in Toledo enumerated five elements the
prosecution must prove in order to meet its burden of proving that a criminal threat
was uttered. Minor challenges the findings with respect to two of the five
elements, contending that the poem “was [not] ‘on its face and under the
circumstances in which it [was disseminated] so unequivocal, unconditional,
immediate, and specific as to convey to [Mary and Erin] a gravity of purpose and
an immediate prospect of execution of the threat’ ” (quoting § 422) and that the
facts fail to establish he harbored the specific intent to threaten Mary and Erin (see
ibid.).
With respect to the requirement that a threat be “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,” we
explained in People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th 297, that the word “so” in section
422 meant that “ ‘unequivocality, unconditionality, immediacy and specificity are
not absolutely mandated, but must be sufficiently present in the threat and
surrounding circumstances . . . .’ ” (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 340, quoting
People v. Stanfield (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1157.) “The four qualities are
simply the factors to be considered in determining whether a threat, considered
together with its surrounding circumstances, conveys those impressions to the
victim.” (People v. Stanfield, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1157-1158.) A
16
communication that is ambiguous on its face may nonetheless be found to be a
criminal threat if the surrounding circumstances clarify the communication’s
meaning. (People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 753-754.)
With the above considerations in mind, we examine the poem at issue –
“Faces.” What is readily apparent is that much of the poem plainly does not
constitute a threat. “Faces” begins by describing the protagonist’s feelings about
the “faces” that surround him: “Where did they come from? They would
probably become the next doctors or loirs or something. All really intelligent and
ahead in their game. I wish I had a choice on what I want to be like they do. All
so happy and vagrant. Each origonal in their own way. They make me want to
puke.” These lines convey the protagonist’s feelings about the students around
him and describe his envy over how happy and intelligent they appear to be, with
opportunities he does not have. There is no doubt this portion of the poem fails to
convey a criminal threat as no violent conduct whatsoever is expressed or
intimated. Neither do the next two lines of the poem convey a threat: “For I am
Dark, Destructive, & Dangerous. I slap on my face of happiness but inside I am
evil!!” These lines amount to an introspective description of the protagonist,
disclosing that he is “destructive,” “dangerous,” and “evil.” But again, such
divulgence threatens no action.
Only the final two lines of the poem could arguably be construed to be a
criminal threat: “For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school.
So parents watch your children cuz I’m BACK!!” Mary believed this was a threat,
but her testimony reveals that her conclusion rested upon a considerable amount of
interpretation: “I feel that when he said, ‘I can be the next person,’ that he meant
that he will be, because also he says that he’s dark, destructive, and dangerous
person. And I’d describe a dangerous person as someone who has something in
17
mind of killing someone or multiple people.” The juvenile court’s finding that
minor threatened to kill Mary and Erin likewise turned primarily on its
interpretation of the words, “For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students
at school” (italics added) to mean not only that minor could do so, but that he
would do so. In other words, the court construed the word “can” to mean “will.”
But that is not what the poem recites. However the poem was interpreted by Mary
and Erin, and the court, the fact remains that “can” does not mean “will.” While
the protagonist in “Faces” declares that he has the potential or capacity to kill
students given his dark and hidden feelings, he does not actually threaten to do so.
While perhaps discomforting and unsettling, in this unique context this disclosure
simply does not constitute an actual threat to kill or inflict harm.
As is evident, the poem “Faces” is ambiguous and plainly equivocal. It
does not describe or threaten future conduct since it does not state that the
protagonist plans to kill students, or even that any potential victims would include
Mary or Erin. Such ambiguity aside, it appears that Mary actually misread the text
of the poem. In her e-mail to Rasmussen, she stated that the poem read, “he’s
going to be the next person to bring a gun to school and kill random people.’ ”
(Italics added.) She did not tell Rasmussen that this was her interpretation of the
poem, but asserted that those were the words used by minor. Given the student
killings in Columbine and Santee, this may have been an understandable mistake,
but it does not alter the requirement that the words actually used must constitute a
threat in light of the surrounding circumstances.
The Court of Appeal rejected minor’s contention that the protagonist in the
poem was a fictional character rather than minor because he gave the poem to
Mary with a note stating that the poem described “me and my feelings.” There is
no inconsistency, however, in viewing the protagonist as a fictional character,
18
while also concluding that the poem reflects minor’s personal feelings. And when
read by another person, the poem may similarly describe that reader’s feelings, as
minor implied when he asked Mary if the poem also “described [her] and [her]
feelings.” More important, the note is consistent with the contention that the poem
did nothing more than describe certain dark feelings. The note asked whether
Mary had the same feelings; it did not state or imply something to the effect of,
“this is what I plan to do, are you with me.” (See, e.g., In re Ryan D. (2002) 100
Cal.App.4th 854, 864 (Ryan D.) [violent painting did not unequivocally convey a
threat since it was unaccompanied by statements such as “this will be you,” or “I
do have a gun, you know”].)
Of course, exactly what the poem means is open to varying interpretations
because a poem may mean different things to different readers. As a medium of
expression, a poem is inherently ambiguous. In general, “[r]easonable persons
understand musical lyrics and poetic conventions as the figurative expressions
which they are,” which means they “are not intended to be and should not be read
literally on their face, nor judged by a standard of prose oratory.” (McCollum v.
CBS, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 989, 1002.) Ambiguity in poetry is sometimes
intended: “ ‘Ambiguity’ itself can mean an indecision as to what you mean, an
intention to mean several things, a probability that one or the other or both of two
things has been meant, and the fact that a statement has several meanings.”
(Emerson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (2d ed. 1996) pp. 5-6.) As the Court of
Appeal observed in Ryan D., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th 854, a case involving a
painting graphically depicting a student shooting a police officer in the back of the
head, “a painting – even a graphically violent painting – is necessarily ambiguous
because it may use symbolism, exaggeration, and make-believe.” (Ryan D.,
supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 858.) This observation is equally applicable to poetry
19
since it is said that “[p]ainting is silent poetry and poetry painting that speaks.”
(Plutarch, De Gloria Atheniensium, III, 346, attributed to Simonides (c. 556-468
B.C.) in Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (15th ed. 1980) p. 68.)
In short, viewed in isolation the poem is not “so unequivocal” as to have
conveyed to Mary and Erin a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect that
minor would bring guns to school and kill them. Ambiguity, however, is not
necessarily sufficient to immunize the poem from being deemed a criminal threat
because the surrounding circumstances may clarify facial ambiguity. (See Toledo,
supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 227-228; People v. Butler, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp.
753-754.) As section 422 makes clear, a threat must “on its face and under the
circumstances in which it is made, [be] so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate,
and specific as to convey . . . a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of
execution of the threat.” (Id., italics added.) When the words are vague, context
takes on added significance, but care must be taken not to diminish the
requirements that the communicator have the specific intent to convey a threat and
that the threat be of such a nature as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate
prospect of the threat’s execution.
Unlike some cases that have turned on an examination of the surrounding
circumstances given a communication’s vagueness, incriminating circumstances in
this case are noticeably lacking: there was no history of animosity or conflict
between the students (People v. Gaut (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1431-1432
[defendant had a history of threatening and assaulting victim]; People v. Mendoza
(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1341-1342 [both victim and defendant were gang
members and threat made following victim’s testimony against defendant’s
brother]), no threatening gestures or mannerisms accompanied the poem (People
v. Lepolo (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 85, 88-89 [defendant raised a 36-inch machete
20
and waved it at victim while making threat]; cf. In re Ricky T. (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 1132, 1138 [threat unaccompanied by “physical show of force”]), and
no conduct suggested to Mary and Erin that there was an immediate prospect of
execution of a threat to kill (People v. Butler, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 749-
750 [defendant and his cohorts surrounded victim and grabbed her arm]). Thus
the circumstances surrounding the poem’s dissemination fail to show that, as a
threat, it was sufficiently unequivocal to convey to Mary and Erin an immediate
prospect that minor would bring guns to school and shoot students.
The themes and feelings expressed in “Faces” are not unusual in literature:
“Literature illuminates who ‘we’ are: the repertory of selves we harbor within, the
countless feelings we experience but never express or perhaps even acknowledge,
the innumerable other lives we could but do not live, all those ‘inside’ lives that
are not shown, not included in our resumes.” (Weinstein, A Scream Goes
Through the House: What Literature Teaches Us About Life (2003) p. xxiii.)
“Faces” was in the style of a relatively new genre of literature called “dark poetry”
that amici curiae J.M. Coetzee et al. explain is an extension of the poetry of Sylvia
Plath, John Berryman, Robert Lowell, and other confessional poets who depict
“extraordinarily mean, ugly, violent, or harrowing experiences.” (See Deutsch,
Poetry Handbook (4th ed. 1973) pp. 36-37, quoting John Berryman’s “Dream
Songs” [“I’m scared a only one thing, which is me”].) Consistent with that genre,
“Faces” invokes images of darkness, violence, discontentment, envy, and
alienation. The protagonist describes his duplicitous nature – malevolent on the
inside, felicitous on the outside.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold the poem entitled “Faces” and the
circumstances surrounding its dissemination fail to establish that it was a criminal
threat because the text of the poem, understood in light of the surrounding
21
circumstances, was not “so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as
to convey to [the two students] a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of
execution of the threat.” (§ 422.)9
Our conclusion that the poem was not an unequivocal threat disposes of the
matter and we need not, and do not, discuss minor’s contention that he did not
harbor the specific intent to threaten the students as required by section 422.
This case implicates two apparently competing interests: a school
administration’s interest in ensuring the safety of its students and faculty versus
students’ right to engage in creative expression. Following Columbine, Santee,
and other notorious school shootings, there is a heightened sensitivity on school
campuses to latent signs that a student may undertake to bring guns to school and
embark on a shooting rampage. Such signs may include violence-laden student
writings. For example, the two student killers in Columbine had written poems for
their English classes containing “extremely violent imagery.” (Brunner, The Right
to Write? Free Expression Rights of Pennsylvania’s Creative Students After
Columbine (2003) 107 Dick. L.Rev. 891, 893, 897.) Ensuring a safe school

9
Because line-drawing is inherently difficult when dealing with language
and modes of expression, we decline amici curiae J.M. Coetzee et al.’s invitation
to accord poems a “very strong presumption” that they are not true threats. No
bright-line rule may be drawn that adequately distinguishes a poem such as the
one involved in the present case (or even poems of Plath, Lowell, and Berryman)
from a “poem” that conveys a threat, such as, “Roses are red. Violets are blue. I’m
going to kill you, and your family too.” Both types of expression are in poetic
form, may be labeled “poetry,” and may have a title and by-line. We believe the
elements of section 422, in particular the requirements that the communicator have
the specific intent to threaten and that the threat be “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,” coupled with independent
review, adequately protects freedom of expression, as they have done in this case.

22


environment and protecting freedom of expression, however, are not necessarily
antagonistic goals.
Minor’s reference to school shootings and his dissemination of his poem in
close proximity to the Santee school shooting no doubt reasonably heightened the
school’s concern that minor might emulate the actions of previous school shooters.
Certainly, school personnel were amply justified in taking action following Mary’s
e-mail and telephone conversation with her English teacher, but that is not the
issue before us. We decide here only that minor’s poem did not constitute a
criminal threat.10

10
Amicus curiae Youth Law Center urges that allowing and even encouraging
students to express their feelings teaches students to write out their feelings rather
than acting them out and permits early intervention. Early intervention may
involve talking to the student, either by school personnel such as a school
psychologist or other professional, talking to the student’s parents, and in the most
egregious of situations, such as where there appears to be an imminent threat,
resort to law enforcement. (Citing U.S. Dept. of Education Early Warning,
Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools (1998).) Amici curiae Legal Services
for Children, Juvenile Law Center, National Center for Youth Law, and Legal
Advocates for Children and Youth similarly urge that minor should not be
sanctioned for engaging in what mental health professionals recommend –
expressing feelings by, inter alia, writing poetry.
23



III. DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD,
J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
BROWN,
J.
24
C O P Y

IN RE GEORGE T.

S111780

CONCURRING OPINION BY BAXTER, J.

I concur in the result. To convict one of the felony offense of making a
criminal threat, the prosecution must prove several technical and stringent
elements. One of these is that the threat must have been, “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.” (Pen. Code, § 422, italics
added.)
Applying the independent review standard proper for cases implicating
First Amendment interests, I agree the evidence does not establish this specific
element. The writing, in the form of a poem, that defendant handed to Mary S.
and Erin S. said that the protagonist, “Julius AKA Angel,” “can be the next kid to
bring guns to kill students at school.” (Italics added.) It did not say, in so many
words, that defendant presently intended to do so. And the surrounding
circumstances did not lend unconditional meaning to this conditional language.
That said, there is no question that defendant’s ill-chosen words were
menacing by any common understanding, both on their face and in context. The
terror they elicited in Mary S., and the concern they evoked in the school
authorities, were real and entirely reasonable. It is safe to say that fears arising
from a raft of high school shooting rampages, including those in Colorado and
1


Santee, California, are prevalent among American high school students, teachers,
and administrators. Certainly this was so on March 16, 2001, only eleven days
after the Santee incident had occurred. That is the day defendant selected to press
his violent writing on two vulnerable and impressionable young schoolmates who
hardly knew him.
Defendant admitted at trial that he intentionally combined the subject
matter and the timing for maximum shock value. Indeed, he acknowledged, his
words would be interpreted as threats by “kids who didn’t know [he] [was] just
kidding.”
Under these circumstances, as the majority observe, school and law
enforcement officials had every reason to worry that defendant, deeply troubled,
was contemplating his own campus killing spree. The important interest that
underlies the criminal-threat law—protection against the trauma of verbal
terrorism—was also at stake. Accordingly, the authorities were fully justified, and
should be commended, insofar as they made a prompt, full, and vigorous response
to the incident. They would have been remiss had they not done so. Nothing in
our very narrow holding today should be construed as suggesting otherwise.

BAXTER, J.
2


See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion In re George T.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion


Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
XXX 102 Cal.App4th 1422
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S111780
Date Filed: July 22, 2004
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Santa Clara
Judge: Nazario Alberto Gonzales

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Michael A. Kresser, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Marsha Levick, Suzanne Meiners; Abigail Trillin and Sarah Colby for Legal Services for Children,
Juvenile Law Center, National Center for Youth Law and Legal Advocates for Children and Youth as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Susan L. Burrell for Youth Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

David Greene; Ann Brick; Robert M. O’Neil, Joshua Wheeler; Michael Murphy; Rohde & Victoroff,
Stephen F. Rohde; Joseph, Lichtenstein & Levinson, Burton Joseph; and Joan L. Bertin for J. M. Coetzee,
Michael Chabon, Peter Straub, Harlan Ellison, George Garrett, Ayelet Waldman, Neil Gaiman, Jayne Lyn
Stahl, Michael Rothenberg, Julia Stein, Greg Rucka, Floyd Salas, American Civil Liberties Union of
Northern California, Feminists for Free Expression, First Amendment Project, Comic Book Legal Defense
Fund, National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN American Center and PEN USA as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass and Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorneys General, Stan M.
Helfman, Violet M. Lee and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


1

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Michael A. Kresser
100 N. Winchester Blvd., Suite 310
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 241-6171

Jeffrey M. Laurence
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(415) 703-5897
2


Opinion Information
Date:Docket Number:
Thu, 07/22/2004S111780

Parties
1T., G. (Overview party)
2The People (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Jeffrey Michael K. Laurence
Ofc Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave #11000
San Francisco, CA

3T., G. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Michael A. Kresser
Sixth District Appellate Program
100 N Winchester Blvd #310
Santa Clara, CA

4Youth Law Center (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Susan L. Burrell
Youth Law Center
417 Montgomery St #900
San Francisco, CA

5Legal Services For Children (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Marsha Levick
1315 Walnut Street, 4th
1315 Walnut Street, 4th
Philadelphia, NY

6Legal Services For Children (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Abigail Trillin
Legal Services For Children
1254 Market St 3FL
San Francisco, CA

7Legal Services For Children (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Sarah S Colby
Legal Svcs For Children Inc
1254 Market St 3FL
San Francisco, CA

8First Amendment Project (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Ann Brick
c/o ACLU
1663 Mission St 4th Fl
San Francisco, CA

9First Amendment Project (Amicus curiae)
Represented by David A. Greene
First Amendment Project
1736 Franklin St 9th Fl
Oakland, CA

10First Amendment Project (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Michael Donnelly Murphy
Munger Tolles & Olson
355 S Grand Ave 35FL
Los Angeles, CA

11First Amendment Project (Amicus curiae)
Represented by J. Joshua Wheeler
Attorney at Law
400 Peter Jefferson Pl
Charlottesville, VA


Disposition
Jul 22 2004Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Dec 3 2002Petition for review filed
  by counsel for appellant (George T.) (40k)
Dec 3 2002Record requested
 
Dec 4 2002Received Court of Appeal record
  1-file jacket, briefs & 1-accordion folder
Jan 15 2003Petition for Review Granted (criminal case)
  Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Werdegar, Brown and Moreno, JJ.
Jan 21 2003Received letter from:
  People, Jeffrey Laurence assigned deputy.
Jan 24 2003Counsel appointment order filed
  Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, the Sixth District Appellate Program is hereby appointed to represent appellant on his appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits shall be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Feb 21 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for appellant requests 30-day extension of time to serve and file the brief on the merits.
Feb 25 2003Extension of time granted
  Appellant's time to serve and file the brief on the merits is extended to and including March 25, 2003.
Mar 25 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for appellant requests extension of ten days to file the appellant's brief on the merits.
Mar 28 2003Extension of time granted
  Appellant's time to serve and file the brief on the merits is extended to and including April 4, 2003.
Apr 7 2003Opening brief on the merits filed
  by counsel for appellant (George T.) (40k)
Apr 30 2003Request for extension of time filed
  by (AG) counsel for respondent requesting an extension to June 2, 2003. to file the respondent's brief.
May 5 2003Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the respondent's brief is extended to and including June 2, 2003.
May 27 2003Request for extension of time filed
  Respondent requests an extension of time to July 2, 2003 to file the respondent's brief.
May 29 2003Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the reply brief is extended to and including July 2, 2003.
Jun 24 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to August 1, 2003 to file the answer brief.
Jun 25 2003Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the answer brief is extended to and including August 1, 2003.
Jul 22 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to August 22, 2003 to file the answer brief.
Jul 25 2003Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the answer brief is extended to and including August 22, 2003. No further extensions of time to file respondent's brief are contemplated.
Aug 21 2003Answer brief on the merits filed
  with permission by counsel for respondent (People)
Aug 21 2003Filed:
  by counsel for respondent Appl. for Leave to File Over-sized brief.
Sep 9 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for appellant (George T.) requests fifteen day extension of time (September 25, 2003), to file the reply brief on the merits.
Sep 12 2003Extension of time granted
  Appellant's time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2003.
Sep 24 2003Application to file over-length brief filed
  by counsel for appellant (George T.)
Sep 24 2003Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  with permission by counsel for appellant (George T.)
Sep 25 2003Received application to file amicus curiae brief; with brief
  Youth Law Center in support appellant.
Sep 25 2003Received application to file amicus curiae brief; with brief
  Legal Services for Children, Inc., et al., in support of appellant.
Sep 26 2003Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  Youth Law Center
Sep 26 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
  by Youth Law Center in support of appellant. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Sep 26 2003Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  Legal Services for Children, et al.
Sep 26 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
  Legal Services for Children, et al., in support of appellant. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Oct 24 2003Received application to file amicus curiae brief; with brief
  First Amendment Project, et al., (non-party) *** granted *** order being prepared.
Oct 27 2003Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  First Amendment Project,et al.,
Oct 27 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
  First Amendment Project, et al., in support of appellant. (non-party) An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Nov 6 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to December 17, 2003 to file a response to amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Project, et al.
Nov 12 2003Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Kesser
Nov 13 2003Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the response to amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Project is extended to and including December 17, 2003.
Dec 10 2003Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to January 16, 2004 to file a response to amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Project, et al.
Dec 15 2003Opposition filed
  by counsel for aplt. (George T.) to respondent's second request for extension of time to file brief.
Dec 16 2003Extension of time granted
  On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file an answer to the Amicus Brief filed by the First Amendment Project, et al., is extended to and including January 16, 2004.
Jan 9 2004Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to February 5, 2004 to file a response to amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Proj., et al.)
Jan 13 2004Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the response to the amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Project is extended to and including February 5, 2004. No further extensions of time are contemplated.
Jan 14 2004Opposition filed
  by counsel for aplt. (George T.) to Atty Gen. Application for third Request for Extension to file Reply to Amicus Curiae Brief..
Jan 21 2004Response to amicus curiae brief filed
  by counsel for resp. (People) to amicus curiae brief of First Amendment Proj., et al.
Apr 28 2004Case ordered on calendar
  5-27-04, 9am, S.F.
May 27 2004Cause argued and submitted
 
Jul 22 2004Opinion filed: Judgment reversed
  Opinion by Moreno, J. ----- joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, & Brown, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Baxter, J.
Aug 24 2004Remittitur issued (criminal case)
 
Aug 27 2004Received:
  receipt for remittitur CA 6
Dec 15 2004Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Kesser

Briefs
Apr 7 2003Opening brief on the merits filed
 
Aug 21 2003Answer brief on the merits filed
 
Sep 24 2003Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
 
Sep 26 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
 
Sep 26 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
 
Oct 27 2003Amicus curiae brief filed
 
Jan 21 2004Response to amicus curiae brief filed
 
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website