## Facts

- A deputy sheriff investigating a gang-related shooting approached Manuel G., a known gang member, in a public place and asked to speak with him about the shooting.
- Manuel denied knowledge, but the deputy continued asking questions.
- The deputy did not block Manuel’s path, touch him, or otherwise restrain his movement during the exchange.
- Manuel made threatening statements to the deputy, including threats suggesting officers would be killed if they continued investigating his gang.
- The deputy warned Manuel that threatening an officer was a crime; Manuel persisted, and the deputy arrested him.
- A juvenile petition alleged a Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 violation based on Penal Code § 69 (attempting by threats to deter an executive officer from performing a legal duty).

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 69 is violated by threats intended to deter an officer from lawfully performing duties in the future, even if the officer is not lawfully performing duties at the instant the threat is made.
2. If § 69 requires the officer to be engaged in lawful performance at the time of the threat, whether the deputy was acting lawfully or instead illegally detaining Manuel when the threats occurred.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the juvenile court’s finding that Manuel violated Penal Code § 69.
- The court held that § 69 is violated when a person, by threats, attempts to deter an officer from the lawful performance of duties in the future, without regard to whether the officer is lawfully performing duties at the moment of the threat.
- Alternatively, substantial evidence supported the finding that the deputy’s conduct was lawful because the interaction was a consensual encounter rather than a detention.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 69’s “attempt by means of any threat or violence to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty” reaches threats aimed at deterring future lawful performance of official duties.
- For § 69 under the threats prong, the offense centers on the attempt to deter; completion does not depend on whether the officer is actually deterred.
- An officer’s approach and questioning of a person in a public place, without physical restraint or impediment to movement, may constitute a consensual encounter rather than a detention.
- On review of evidentiary sufficiency, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, and supported findings are upheld.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a juvenile adjudication under Penal Code § 69 where a minor threatened a deputy during street questioning, holding that § 69 covers threats intended to deter future lawful police duties and, in any event, the record supported that the deputy’s questioning was a lawful consensual encounter rather than an unlawful detention.


In re Manuel G., 16 Cal. 4th 805, 941 P.2d 880 (Cal. 1997)