In People v. Aispuro (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1509, the Court of Appeal similarly concluded that the facts in Matian were sufficient to establish false imprisonment by menace. (Id. at p. 1513.) The court determined that the Matian court had "erroneously required evidence of a deadly weapon or an express verbal threat of additional physical harm before menace could be found." (Ibid.) The court held: "An express or implied threat of harm does not require the use of a deadly weapon or an express verbal threat to do additional harm. Threats can be exhibited in a myriad number of ways, verbally and by conduct. There can be no doubt that Matian's conduct constituted a threat of harm to his victim, even though he did not specifically say to the victim, 'If you leave I'm going to physically harm you,' and even though he did not raise his fist or display a deadly weapon." (Ibid.)