Terroristic Threats in Pennsylvania
Terroristic threats is a strange law in Pennsylvania that frequently touches on First Amendment rights. While political speech is protected, threats or actions to commit crimes of violence are not protected speech because these threats and communications are particularly disruptive and frightening. For example, stating “I am going to kill you!” is a classic terroristic threat. Still, there are some nuances with Terroristic Threats that any criminal defendant or criminal defense attorney should be aware of.
Under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, terroristic threats are defined and penalized under Section 2706. This statute criminalizes threats made with the intent to terrorize another, or cause evacuation of a building, or disrupt a place of assembly, or disrupt facility of public transportation, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. The statute aims to address threats that seriously impair personal security or public convenience, and certain words (coupled with actions) are treated differently than others.
The first big exception is the “transitory anger” exception to the charge of terroristic threats. This exception states that a terroristic threat charge can be dismissed if it was made during a period of anger and not meant to be a “serious” or actual threat. In Commonwealth v. Kidd for example, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a conviction for terroristic threats, finding that the defendant's drunken threats to police officers did not meet the requisite intent to terrorize or reckless disregard of causing such terror. Commonwealth v. Kidd, 296 Pa. Super. 393.
Despite this, the “transitory anger” defense is exceedingly difficult to obtain. Most jurists are reluctant to dismiss terroristic threats charges, especially if the communication uttered specific and violent threats. The more specific the threats the more likely that the case will not be dismissed. In Commonwealth v. Demulter, 2024 PA Super 86 upheld a conviction for terroristic threats, emphasizing that the intent to terrorize can be established even if the threat was made in anger, provided the surrounding circumstances support the required mens rea. See also Commonwealth v. Campbell, 2021 PA Super 122.
As stated, the First Amendment is frequently invoked in the context of a terroristic threats prosecution. In the Interest of J.J.M., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated a juvenile's adjudication for terroristic threats, ruling that the statements made did not constitute a true threat under the First Amendment. In the Interest of J.J.M., 265 A.3d 246. In that case, a juvenile stated that he “did not think people deserved to live” and that he “wanted to beat the record of 19” six days after a mass shooting. The Supreme Court ruled that these statements, while concerning, were too vague to establish a “true threat” and did not establish a conscious disregard for the risk of terror that he may have caused in his listeners.
Lastly, harassing phone calls can constitute terroristic threats, as can mere actions with dangerous objects, such as a drill or a hammer. See Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 2009 Pa. Super. 114. If you or someone you know is charged with terroristic threats you should consider your First Amendment rights and whether that words/actions constituted a “true threat” or whether it was made during a period of “transitory anger.” These defenses could save you from a conviction.
