California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Azevedo, NO.A128379, Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR530516 (Cal. App. 2011):
prosecutor's closing argument and the verdict forms, and we agree.6 The prosecutor emphasized defendant's use of a knife, a weapon he used during the first threat but not the second, and the jury verdict forms reflected this difference. The prosecutor also emphasized that the first threat was unconditional, an element of making a criminal threat ( 422). Although she briefly conflated the two threats, the prosecutor's argument as a whole communicated with sufficient clarity and directness the jury's duty to render a unanimous decision as to whether defendant's first threat violated section 422. (People v. Melhado, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1539.)
Page 12
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.