Oh, the creative mind. How we love rappers and poets who channel their inner angst into poetry and lyrics for us to hum along with or sing along with them. But, what happens when inner demons exposed in a song mirror reality?
If song lyrics explicitly identify the proposed victim of a crime so that the lyrics can be found to contain a criminal threat, the artist can be charged with this crime, according to Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, (which is here in Los Angeles), in People v. Murillo (2015)__ Cal.App. 4th __, ("Murillo"), Case No. B257429, decided on July 22, 2015. In Murillo, the Court of Appeal found that alleged threats were made in the lyrics of a so-called "rap song" distributed on the internet. The song's lyrics lamented a friend’s incarceration and referred to the victims of his friend’s crime by their first and last names, describing them as "hoe[s]," among other profanities, and describing proposed retribution for their "snitching."
These lyrics state: "[T]hese bitches caught him slippin [¶] Then they fuckin snitchin [¶] . . . I'm fucking all these bitches [¶] Hunting down all these snitches [¶] . . . Shit you know we have no fear [¶] I'll have your head just like a dear [¶] It will be hanging on my wall [¶] . . . I said go and get the Feds [¶] Cuz your gonna to end up dead [¶] You're going be laying on that bed [¶] Cuz im coming for your head bitch."
Murillo posted a Twitter message regarding pressure that he had received from the high-school dean to remove the song because it contained threats. Murillo referred to the dean as "dumb ass," and stated "805 hoes on blast lol." Later, one of the identified girls in the song, saw a link to Murillo's new song on her Facebook newsfeed. She opened the link and listened to the song several times before she understood it. She was shocked and frightened by the song's lyrics and also by the comments posted by others. The girl informed her mother, who then contacted law enforcement and Murillo was arrested for two counts of making a criminal threat to a crime victim in violation of Penal Code section 140, subdivision (a), one charge for each girl.
At Murillo’s preliminary hearing, the magistrate noted that publishing the victims' names "speaks to the purpose behind [Murillo's] intent." But the magistrate explained that "the rap song is closer to protected speech than non-protected speech." and discharged the felony complaint and declined to hold Murillo to answer for the charges. The state appealed and sought to reinstate the charges.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the state and ordered that the charges be reinstated.
Penal Code Section 140, subdivision (a), makes it a crime to threaten a crime victim with violence. Subdivision (a), provides in relevant part: "[E]very person who willfully uses force or threatens to use force or violence upon . . . a victim of[] a crime . . . because the . . . victim . . . has provided any assistance or information to a law enforcement officer, or to a public prosecutor in a criminal proceeding . . . , shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years."
The state asserted that Murillo's song lyrics were a serious expression of his intent to commit acts of violence against both girl victims of his friend’s crime. Section 140 only requires a general intent, not specific intent to intimidate the victim, Also, section 140 does not require that the threat be communicated to the victim.
The court of Appeal found that a reasonable listener could have understood "Moment for Life Remix" to constitute a true threat to Jane Does 1 and 2; that is, the song could be understood to convey a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against the girls. The court focused on the lyrics stating, "you're gonna end up dead," and "I'm coming for your head, bitch." The court also pointed out that Murillo had used the girl’s actual names and repeatedly used the phrase "fuck snitches." Therefore, the Court ruled that for purposes of the preliminary examination, this evidence provides sufficient cause to believe Murillo is guilty of the charged offenses and as a matter of law, the magistrate's legal conclusion otherwise is in error.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney- client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
No comments:
Post a Comment