5 Cases to Understanding California Terrorist Threat Law: Penal Code § 422(a)

By Darren Chaker, Brief Writer

California’s Penal Code § 422(a), commonly referred to as the “terrorist threat law,” criminalizes the act of making a threat to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person. This statute is designed to address threats that create a sustained fear in the victim, even if the threatener has no intention of carrying out the threat. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of California Penal Code § 422(a), including its legal framework, key case law, and potential impacts on free speech and criminal justice.

Legal Framework: Penal Code § 422(a) – Defining a California Terrorist Threat Law

Penal Code § 422(a) states:

“Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.”

The statute targets “true threats,” which are not protected under the First Amendment. A “true threat” is defined as a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to harm, regardless of whether the speaker intends to carry out the threat.

Key Elements of Penal Code § 422(a) as Applied to California Terrorist Threat Law

To secure a conviction under Penal Code § 422(a), the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury.
2. The threat was made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat.
3. The threat was unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific.
4. The threat caused the victim to be in sustained fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family.

California Terrorist Threat Law – Case Law Interpreting Penal Code § 422(a)

California courts have extensively interpreted Penal Code § 422(a) to clarify its scope and application. Below are key cases that have shaped the understanding of this statute:

1. In re David L., 234 Cal.App.3d 1655, 1658, 1661 (1991)

In In re David L., the court rejected an overbreadth challenge to Penal Code § 422(a), holding that the statute was violated even when the threat was relayed to the victim by an intermediary. The court emphasized that the statute’s language is clear and does not require direct communication between the threatener and the victim.

2. People v. Fisher, 12 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1558, 1560 (1993)

In People v. Fisher, the court rejected the argument that Penal Code § 422(a) is unconstitutionally overbroad because the speaker need not intend to carry out the threat. The court held that the statute is narrowly tailored to punish only “true threats,” which are not protected by the First Amendment.

3. People v. Maciel, 113 Cal.App.4th 679, 689 (2003)

In People v. Maciel, the court held that Penal Code § 422(a) is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. The court found that the statute provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and minimal guidelines for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application.

4. People v. Mendoza, 59 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339 (1997)

In People v. Mendoza, the court emphasized the importance of surrounding circumstances in determining whether a statement constitutes a criminal threat. The court held that seemingly innocuous words can be transformed into a threat when considered in context.

5. In re Ricky T., 87 Cal.App.4th 1132 (2001)

In In re Ricky T., the court held that a student’s statement, “I’m going to get you,” did not constitute a criminal threat under Penal Code § 422(a). The court found the statement ambiguous, not immediate, and unaccompanied by any history of conflict or physical force.

Potential Impact of Penal Code § 422(a)

The application of Penal Code § 422(a) has significant implications for both free speech and public safety. While the statute is narrowly tailored to punish only “true threats,” its broad language can sometimes lead to overreach. For example, in In re Ricky T., the court demonstrated the importance of context in distinguishing between protected speech and criminal threats.

Additionally, the statute’s requirement of “sustained fear” ensures that only serious threats are prosecuted. However, First Amendment advocate and legal researcher Darren Chaker this element can be subjective, leading to potential inconsistencies in enforcement. The case law discussed above provides valuable guidance for interpreting and applying Penal Code § 422(a) in a manner that balances public safety with constitutional rights.

California Terrorist Threat Law – Conclusion

California Penal Code § 422(a) plays a critical role in addressing threats that pose a danger to public safety. By targeting “true threats,” the statute ensures that individuals who engage in harmful rhetoric are held accountable while protecting free speech rights. The case law interpreting this statute provides important safeguards against overreach and ensures that only genuine threats are prosecuted.

For attorneys, understanding the nuances of Penal Code § 422(a) and its application is essential for effectively representing clients in cases involving terrorist threats. Properly navigating the statute’s requirements and defenses can significantly impact the outcome of a case. It is important to note there are significantly new intent requirements defined by the US Supreme Court since the initial posting of this article. See, Counterman v. Colarado.

About The Author