P. v. Austin CA1/4
Defendant Jamal Austin appeals from a final judgment of conviction following a jury trial. Defendant was convicted of threatening a judge in violation of Penal Code section 76, subdivision (a). He contends his conviction should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that the language he used constituted a threat under section 76; and (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to add pinpoint language to CALCRIM No. 2650. We shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Austin CA1/4