People v. Hardesty CA3

Filed 8/20/20 P. v. Hardesty CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C087943

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE022861)

v.

STEPHEN THOMAS HARDESTY,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Stephen Thomas Hardesty not guilty of assault with a firearm, but guilty of making a criminal threat. On appeal, defendant argues that: (1) insufficient evidence supports the guilty finding on the criminal threat count because it is inconsistent with the not guilty finding on the assault with a firearm count; and (2) the trial court erred in responding to a jury inquiry about self-defense. We disagree with both claims and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND Defendant and his neighbor own large adjoining parcels of land. The neighbor would sometimes allow men, including R.M. and the victim, onto his land to cut down trees and harvest the wood. Defendant objected to this practice. In the past, defendant had contacted his neighbor, as well as law enforcement, about such incursions. One day, R.M. and the victim cut down several trees. Defendant called his neighbor to object, but was rebuffed. When R.M. and the victim returned the next day, they noticed that some of the wood they had cut was missing, with tracks leading to defendant’s home. Later in the day, when R.M. and the victim were preparing to leave in R.M.’s truck, defendant pulled up in his truck. Defendant challenged them, asserting that they were not entitled to be there. The victim got out of the truck, walked around to defendant’s truck, and told him that they had permission to be on the land. Defendant then picked up a rifle, pointed it out his truck window at the victim, and told the victim, “I’m going to blow your fucken [sic] head off.” The victim reached up and pushed the barrel of the gun away. He then retreated back to R.M.’s truck, and R.M. called defendant’s neighbor, who called the sheriff’s department. Defendant drove his truck home first, then down the road, where he waited for sheriff’s deputies to find him. They recovered a loaded bolt-action rifle. At trial, defendant testified that he regularly kept a rifle in his truck for protection from robbers and coyotes. On the day in question, he returned to his property and found R.M. and the victim parked in the road. He asked R.M. whether he had permission to be there, and R.M. replied that he did. R.M. volunteered to call defendant’s neighbor. While he was doing so, the victim threw open the passenger-side door of R.M.’s truck, ran around to defendant’s truck, and yelled, “I’ll take care of you right now.” When he was within three or four feet of defendant’s window, he raised his hands as if he were about to grab defendant. Defendant was frightened, so he grabbed his rifle, pointed it at the victim, and said, “[I]f you grab me, I’ll blow your fucking head off.” R.M. stated that