Fisher

People v. Fisher

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 1556·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 889·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 92·93 Daily Journal DAR 1579·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 795
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1993A054733California1,145 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

Appellant Clinton Hale Fisher was convicted by a jury of two counts of violating Penal Code section 422, which makes it a crime to threaten another with death or great bodily injury under certain circumstances, and two counts of violating section 242 (misdemeanor battery). Appellant attacks the constitutionality of section 422 on the ground that the statute is overbroad and criminalizes protected speech. He also contends that section 422 was intended to apply only to gang-related activity and that substantial evidence does not support his conviction. As none of his contentions have merit, we affirm the judgment.

I. Facts and Procedural Information

II. Constitutionality of Section 422

The original version of section 422 prohibited threats made with the intent to “terrorize” another. In People v. Mirmirani (1981) 30 Cal.3d 375 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 636 P.2d 1130 ], the Supreme Court held that this statute and its companion, former section 422.5, were unconstitutionally vague. Read together, the two statutes criminalized threats made with the intent to accomplish “ ‘social or political goals,’ ” but that phrase was so all-inclusive and vague that determining what conduct…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.