Filed 9/24/26 P. v. Green CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C103777
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No.
v. STKCRFDV20210012829)
EDWARD RAY GREEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Edward Ray Green stalked, harassed, and threatened to kill the victim,
a woman with whom he had a sexual relationship. He was then arrested on charges of
domestic violence and other crimes against another woman. After that he was arrested
and charged with the crimes against the victim. A jury found defendant guilty of multiple
charges against each woman, including one count of making a criminal threat against the
victim for a video he sent her from Reno threatening to kill her at the “first sign of …
foul play.” The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years and 4 months in prison, which
included 16 months for the criminal threat. On appeal, defendant contends his conviction
for the criminal threat is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm.
Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the threat, defendant and the victim had been in a sexual
relationship for six to nine months. During the relationship, defendant got angry and
1
yelled at the victim for no reason. When he was intoxicated, he would “act out.” At
times, he would be gone, and when he returned, he would immediately and falsely accuse
her of cheating on him by having sex with other men.
The victim repeatedly tried ending the relationship, but defendant “stalked [her]
and followed [her] and called [her] and harassed [her].” He constantly called and sent her
recordings or messages, often asking where she was. And he showed up at her house
uninvited, banging on her window and door until she opened up. The victim called the
police on defendant several times. But the police refused to take action without a
restraining order.
In late August or early September 2021, defendant and the victim spent time
together in Reno. Shortly after the victim returned home, defendant sent her a selfie-style
video of himself still in Reno telling her, “Just remember this. I love you. I don’t give a
fuck. I’mma kill you dead bitch the first sign I see any foul play. So, daddy will be
home in a minute. You got one more day, so go kick it…” When the victim viewed the
video, she felt like defendant was “acting out” and “accusing [her] of·doing something he
felt like [she] was doing, and he was gonna take care of [her] when he got back ….”
Afraid for her safety, the victim immediately drove to her mother’s house and shared the
video, so “[i]n case anything happened to [her], [her mother] would know who to turn
to.” Soon thereafter, she moved in with her mother and filed for a restraining order.
The day after the victim filed for a restraining order, defendant video called her
while he was walking around a few blocks away from her mother’s house. The victim’s
brother was with her, and he told defendant to stop calling. Defendant then held up a gun
and told her brother: “About to stick this motherfucker all up in your ass.”
The victim’s mother tried to serve defendant with the restraining order several
times, but defendant avoided service and continued his attempts to contact the victim.
Although she was afraid, the victim answered his video calls because she felt that it was
safer to check his surroundings, to see if he was close enough that she had to leave. If he
2
was, she would get in her car and drive away. In one of those video calls, defendant
called the victim from the passenger’s seat of a car, asked her where she was, and then
told her he would be going over to her even though she said she did not want to see him.
The victim responded by telling the person in the driver’s seat, “do not bring him to my
house … [defendant] wants to kill me and you will be a part of me dying if you bring him
to my house .... He has a gun and he want[s] to kill me ....” Defendant denied he was
going to kill her but confirmed he was carrying a gun.
Less than two weeks after the victim filed for a restraining order, defendant was
taken into custody on charges of robbery, domestic violence, and other crimes against
another woman. Less than two weeks after that, the court granted the victim’s request for
a five-year restraining order. The restraining order was served on defendant, but he
continued to contact the victim from jail.
After defendant was arrested, the victim also met twice with a criminal
investigator from the district attorney’s office. She shared the threat and other videos
from defendant with the investigator and told the investigator she knew that defendant
had access to firearms, believed he was capable of killing her, and based on his
“relentless behavior,” she was afraid he would carry out his threat.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his conviction for making a criminal
threat is not supported by substantial evidence. He argues that his threat was not “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”
(§ 422) because: (1) defendant conditioned his threat to kill the victim on seeing “foul
play” and there was nothing to indicate that this condition would be met; and (2) the
criminal investigator who met with the victim testified that the victim had previously
stated she was not afraid of defendant after receiving that video.
3
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the entire
record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses
evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact
could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Bolin (1998)
18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence and draw all reasonable
inferences in support of the trier of fact’s determination. (People v. Campbell (2020)
51 Cal.App.5th 463, 483-484.) We reverse only if “ ‘upon no hypothesis whatever is
there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (Bolin, at p. 331.)
To prove that a defendant made a criminal threat, the prosecution must establish
all of the following: (1) the defendant “willfully threaten[ed] to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person,” (2) he made the threat “with
the specific intent that the statement ... be taken as a threat,” (3) the threat was “on its
face and under the circumstances in which it is 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 caused the victim “to be
in sustained fear for their own safety,” and (5) that fear was “reasonabl[e]” under the
circumstances. (§ 422; People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227-228.)
In determining whether a particular threat is a criminal threat, we consider all of
the circumstances surrounding the threat, including the words used, the manner in which
the communication is made, the prior relationship of the parties, and the defendant’s
subsequent actions. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 860.) “[T]he
circumstances under which the threat is made [are what] give meaning to the actual
words used. Even an ambiguous statement may be a basis for a violation of section 422.”
(People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 753.)
Defendant’s conviction was based on the video he sent the victim from Reno,
threatening to kill her at the “first sign of foul play.” Based on defendant’s history of
baselessly and immediately accusing the victim of cheating after his absences, the victim
4
did not perceive the threat as conditional on defendant actually seeing any evidence of
“foul play.” Rather, she interpreted it as defendant “accusing [her] of·doing something
he felt like [she] was doing, and [telling her] he was gonna take care of [her] when he got
back…”
Defendant’s actions before and after the threat reinforced the threat’s immediacy
and gravity of purpose. Defendant had a history of “relentless behavior” toward the
victim, stalking her and showing up to her apartment unannounced and uninvited. He
continued trying to see her and contact her even after she attempted to break up with him
multiple times, called the police on him, moved out of her apartment to get away from
him, obtained a restraining order against him, and told him point blank that she did not
want to see him. She knew that he had access to firearms. And after sending her the
threatening video, he went looking for her while carrying a firearm. He video-called her
a few blocks from her mother’s house and brandished a gun at the victim’s brother in the
call. Then, in a later call, defendant told the victim he was going over to her and again
confirmed he had a gun on his person.
The immediacy and gravity of purpose communicated by the threat and these
surrounding circumstances were not lost on the victim. After receiving the video, the
victim filed for a restraining order and moved in with her mother. The victim fled
whenever defendant video-called her and she recognized his surroundings. She met with
a criminal investigator from the district attorney’s office and shared the threat, other
videos, and her fear of defendant. And then she went to court, asked for, and was granted
a five-year restraining order.
Given these facts, a reasonable jury could have concluded defendant’s threat that
he would “kill [the victim] dead … the first sign [he saw] any foul play” was “so
unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the [victim], a
gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution.” (§ 422.)
5
Defendant supports his argument to the contrary with the criminal investigator’s
testimony that the victim had once stated she was not frightened of defendant after
receiving the video. But that testimony was contradicted by both the victim’s testimony
and other testimony from the criminal investigator. In this context, defendant’s argument
effectively amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence. That is not our role.
(People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 890.) We seek to determine only whether
the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, discloses substantial
evidence to support defendant’s conviction. (Ibid.) And here, substantial evidence
supports defendant’s conviction for making a criminal threat.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
We concur:
/s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
6