Does the Attorney General's contention that a jury should consider how much importance of a statement in a criminal threat case?

⁷ Also unavailing is the Attorney General's contention that the language in CALCRIM No. 358 directing a jury to decide how much importance to give to the statement[s] indicates that the cautionary instruction was never intended to be given when the statement constitutes the criminal act itself. Because the instruction is not itself authority, whether or not it was so intended does not affect our analysis. (See People v. Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 48, fn. 7, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 18 P.3d 11.) In any event, it is not clear that the language directing a jury to consider the importance of the statement is inapplicable in a criminal threats case. In such a case, the jury must determine not only whether the statement was made but also whether it was intended to be taken as a threat and whether it caused the victim to fear for his or her ... safety. ( 422.)

⁷ Also unavailing is the Attorney General's contention that the language in CALCRIM No. 358 directing a jury to decide how much importance to give to the statement[s] indicates that the cautionary instruction was never intended to be given when the statement constitutes the criminal act itself. Because the instruction is not itself authority, whether or not it was so intended does not affect our analysis. (See People v. Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 48, fn. 7, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 18 P.3d 11.) In any event, it is not clear that the language directing a jury to consider the importance of the statement is inapplicable in a criminal threats case. In such a case, the jury must determine not only whether the statement was made but also whether it was intended to be taken as a threat and whether it caused the victim to fear for his or her ... safety. ( 422.)