P.

DISCUSSION

Tavares contends that under section 422, insufficient evidence supported his

conviction because his conduct did not qualify as a threat. He argues we should analyze

his gestures and words separately. He contends his exact words to Reiff are unknown

because Reiff merely testified that he said "something to the effect of 'I am watching you.'

'I am going to get you,' or 'I will get you, because I am watching you.' " (Italics added.)

Alternatively, Tavares contends the statement Reiff attributed to him is ambiguous.

3 Tavares argues his "watching you" gesture followed by his throat slashing gesture did not

constitute a threat because he made no accompanying verbal sounds.

" 'When a reasonable person would foresee that the context and import of the

words will cause the listener to believe he or she will be subjected to physical violence,

the threat falls outside First Amendment protection.' " (People v. Toledo (2001)

Cal.4th 221, 233, italics omitted.) "In drafting the current version of section 422, the

Legislature limited the punishment for criminal threats to this type of unprotected

speech." (People v. Jackson…