P. v. Hepner

Filed 8/23/06 P. v. Hepner CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Defendant Curtis Alan Hepner appeals his conviction by jury trial of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) (hereafter section 422). He raises five claims of error: (1) his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on intent to convey a threat through a third party; (3) the court abused its discretion by allowing the victim to testify that the victim was familiar with him as the subject of an arson investigation; (4) the court abused its discretion in admitting a document found on his computer; and (5) the court improperly instructed the jury that it could find him guilty if the victim feared for the safety of his family. We disagree and affirm.

Background

As Mayor of the City of Vallejo, Anthony Intintoli (Mayor) regularly received e‑mails from his constituents. If an e‑mail concerned a city employee, Mayor would refer it to the city manager. Mayor received an e‑mail dated January 16, 2004, that read, in relevant part, as follows:

â€