What is the test for a defendant to be convicted of making a criminal threat against the victim's parents?

Alternatively, relying on this court's opinion in People v. Coelho (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 861, 885-886 (Coelho), in accordance with the rule of lenity, appellant urges us to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning the factual bases for the verdicts. That is, appellant argues that because "respondent cannot establish by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] was convicted of the criminal threat on the basis of the 'don't call the police or I'll harm your parents' threat, rather than the 'stop talking about [Abraham] or I'll kill you' threat," this court should give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret the guilty verdict on the criminal threat charge as being based on the latter.