The People of California v. Michael Christopher Hammond

Placerville, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with resisting an executive officer.



A customer alerted a local gas station manager that a shopping cart was blocking one of the driveways to the station. The manager went around back, saw the cart, and heard noises from the bushes. The manager called out and asked the person to move his cart. The person was angry and responded with abusive language and told the manager, "If I come out, I'll kill you." The manager was a "little bit" afraid and walked away. He called the police nonemergency number.



Police Officer Michael Pullmann responded. When he arrived at the gas station, he approached the defendant and "it escalated from there." The officer announced his presence and saw the defendant crouched in the bushes. There were items around defendant, including "a shovel head, [a] large stick, [and] numerous empty alcoholic beverages." Pullmann told defendant the manager wanted him to leave.



Defendant responded by yelling and screaming at the officer and saying that he was going to kill him. Defendant was extremely agitated, upset, and angry. Defendant was crouched down in the bushes about six to eight feet from the officer and holding a two-foot-long stick above his head the officer described as "in the shape of a pickaxe, both of the tops had pointed sides." The officer felt unsafe, stepped back, and pulled out his Taser.



The officer directed defendant to drop the stick a number of times and to get down. Eventually, defendant dropped the stick but started screaming and yelling again and this time he picked up the head of a flathead shovel. Again, he shouted he was going to kill the officer. His demeanor was angry, agitated, and irrational. The officer testified



3



he believed the defendant could have closed the gap between the officer and himself in a second or two and could have caused him great bodily injury with the shovel head or the stick. Ultimately, defendant did not do so.



When the officer's partner arrived, defendant dropped the shovel to grab his boots, and at that time, the officers were able to take him into custody. While he was in the patrol car, defendant stated he was going to kill the officer and every other cop in the city. The entire incident took between 10 to 15 minutes. During closing argument, the prosecutor focused on defendant's repeated shouting "I'm going to kill you" as he held the pickaxe stick and the shovel head as the threats of use of force or violence.



The jury acquitted defendant of trespassing but found him guilty of resisting an executive officer in violation of section 69. Defendant waived a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The trial court found defendant used a weapon in the crime. It also found defendant had served a prior prison term and was on parole when he committed the crime. Finally, it found not true that defendant had numerous convictions of increasing seriousness.



* * *



Legal issue Does the conviction for resisting an executive officer violate the First Amendment because the defendant's statements did not constitute a true threat?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. FIRST AMENDMENT "TRUE THREAT" EXCEPTION. The case addresses whether the defendant's conviction for resisting an executive officer under Penal Code § 69 violated the First Amendment, with the court finding that the defendant's loud and direct threats to law enforcement were "true threats" and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment.



CRIMINAL LAW. SPECIFIC INTENT. The court assessed whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's specific intent to interfere with the officer's duties, concluding that the defendant's threats and actions reasonably indicated an intent to deter the officer from performing his official duties.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. CUSTODY CREDITS. The court recognized an arithmetic error in the calculation of the defendant's custody credits, modifying the judgment to award the correct amount of custody credit, which both parties conceded.



Key Phrases Resisting an executive officer. True threat. First Amendment violation. Specific intent to interfere. Additional custody credit.

The judgment is ordered modified to include 270 days of custody credit (135 actual days and 135 conduct days). The judgment is affirmed as modified. The trial court shall forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the El Dorado County Sheriff.