Criminal threats can be charged:
- whether or not you have the ability to carry out the threat, and
- even if you do not actually intend to execute the threat.2
As a wobbler, criminal threats can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, as this table shows:
PC 422 Offense | California Penalties |
Misdemeanor criminal threats |
|
Felony criminal threats |
|
Examples
- threatening to shoot another person while you are holding a gun,
- a recently fired employee calling the former boss and saying, “you and the office staff better watch your backs,”
- texting your ex that you are going to set fire to her apartment.5
In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys offer an in-depth analysis of criminal threats law:
- 1. “Criminal Threats” Defined
- 2. Common Defenses
- 3. Penalties
- 4. Related Offenses
- Additional Reading
1. “Criminal Threats” Defined
California Criminal Jury Instruction “CALCRIM” 1300 spells out the elements of “criminal threats” (formerly referred to as a “terrorist threat”).6 For you to be convicted of violating Penal Code 422 PC, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following six elements.
- you willfully threatened to unlawfully kill or unlawfully cause great bodily injury to the alleged “victim,”
- you made the threat orally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device,
- you intended that your statement be understood as a threat and intended that it be communicated to the alleged “victim,”
- the threat was so clear, immediate, unconditional, and specific that it communicated a serious intention that the threat would be carried out,
- the threat actually caused the “victim” to fear for their own safety (or for the safety of their immediate family), and
- the “victim’s” fear was reasonable under the circumstances.7
Note that you can commit criminal threats without actually addressing the person you are threatening.
Example: The defendant got into a fight with another man. The defendant yelled to a companion, “Shoot him!” For this, the defendant could be charged with violating PC 422 because he intended his statement to be taken as a threat.8
Let’s take a closer look at some of these terms and phrases to better understand their legal definitions.
To Kill or Seriously Injure Another Person
You need not threaten to commit a specific crime against the victim. It is sufficient to simply threaten to kill or cause great bodily injury.
Note that great bodily injury is a significant or substantial bodily injury (such as fractures, contusions, or concussions), as opposed to an insignificant or even moderate one.9
Also note that the threat may be directed at an individual or a group of people (such as all the employees of a particular company).
Verbal, Written or Electronically Communicated Statements
Under Penal Code 422 PC, a criminal threat must be:
- verbal,
- written or
- electronically communicated.
Gestures that are unaccompanied by a verbal, written or electronically communicated statement do not suffice.10 Meanwhile, “electronically communicated” threats can be made through a:
- telephone (a land-line or a cell phone),
- computer,
- video recorder,
- fax machine,
- pager, or
- text message.11
Fear
A key element of making criminal threats is you place the victim in reasonable fear. “Fear” encompasses three different concepts:
- the victim was actually fearful,
- the fear was reasonable, and
- the fear was sustained (as opposed to momentary or fleeting).
Let’s take a look at each of these in order.
Actual Fear
The prosecution must establish that the recipient of the threat actually feared for their safety or the safety of their family. It does not matter whether your threat is:
- delivered in person or
- communicated through a third party.12
Reasonable Fear
There can be no reasonable fear if your threat is silly or unreasonable. However, there does not have to be an immediate ability to carry out the threat as long as the recipient reasonably believes it could be imminent.13
Example: Tom threatens to shoot Bob and has his hand in his pocket to make it look as if he has a gun, even though he really does not. That would suffice, assuming the additional elements of the crime are also satisfied.
Sustained Fear
Courts vaguely define “sustained fear” as:
“a state of mind…that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting or transitory.”14
There is no set timeframe to which this refers, and it must therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis.
A California court has found there was sustained fear when the defendant went to a gas station, displayed a knife in his waistband, and told a man that he would kill the man and his son right then.15
Meanwhile, the same court found no sustained fear when a defendant got in his teacher’s face and stated that he was “going to get him.”16
Conditional and Empty Threats
It bears repeating that Penal Code 422 PC calls for a threat that is:
“so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution.”
Nevertheless, threats that are conditional or empty can still qualify as criminal threats.
Conditional Threats
Conditional threats are threats that are formulated as a condition, such as
- “I will kill you when I get out of jail” or
- “I will kill you if you don’t give me the money by next Tuesday”.
Courts have held:
“conditional threats are true threats if their context reasonably conveys to the victim that they are intended.”17
Depending on the circumstances, this type of threat could actually be a form of extortion or blackmail, which would subject you to additional penalties under California Penal Code 518 PC.18
When conditional threats are made with a sense of purpose and likelihood that they will be executed if the condition is or is not satisfied, they will be considered criminal threats.19
Example: A defendant went to a witness’s home, put a gun to her head and said, “don’t go to court and testify against our home boys or else we’ll hurt you or we’ll take you out…There’s nowhere you can go where I won’t be able to find you.” The court held this was a criminal threat.20
Empty Threats
“Empty” threats are threats that the maker of the threat does not intend to carry out. They are more of a scare tactic than a real threat.
Whether or not you “really” intend to execute the threat is irrelevant to a criminal threats prosecution. All that is required is that you convey the threat in a credible manner so that the recipient reasonably believes you intend to see it through.21
Example: The defendant brought an inoperable grenade to a repair shop and threatened to blow it up. Since the employees thought it was operable and reasonably feared the defendant would carry out his threat, he could be convicted.22
In general, a judge or jury determines whether or not a statement was a threat by examining all of the surrounding circumstances in the case.23
2. Common Defenses
Here at Shouse Law Group, we have represented literally thousands of people charged with criminal threats and similar offenses. In our experience, the following criminal threats defenses have proven very effective with prosecutors, judges, and juries.
The Threat Was Not Immediate
We raise this defense whenever the purported victim could have no reasonable sense of when the alleged threat might be carried out.23
Example: An inmate tells one of the deputies that he is going to kill him. This is probably not a criminal threat because there is no sense of immediacy or any reason for the deputy to assume that the inmate has the ability to carry out the threat.24
The Threat Was Vague or Ambiguous
Criminal threats do not have to specify a time or precise manner of execution.25 Still, we find the vagueness defense useful whenever the alleged threat is so ambiguous that its meaning is unclear.26
Example: A high school student “got in the teacher’s face” and stated that he was “going to get him.” The court reasoned that the defendant’s statement was nothing more than a vague threat of retaliation without prospect of execution and therefore not a criminal threat.27
The Victim Was Not Afraid
If the alleged victim does not fear your threat either because they believe that it is a joke or that you are incapable of executing it, then there is no criminal threats violation – period.
In many cases, we can find eyewitnesses who can attest to the alleged victim’s lack of fear. There may also be surveillance video showing how the victim did not appear afraid.
The Victim’s Fear Was Not Sustained
For a criminal threats charge to stand, the alleged victim’s fear must be more than momentary or fleeting. Or if the alleged victim’s fear was prolonged, charges should still be dismissed if the fear was a clear overreaction.
Here again we would rely on eyewitnesses and surveillance video. We would also ask the jurors to rely on their common sense when determining what happened.
The Threat (or Alleged Victim’s Fear) Was Unreasonable
If the recipient of the threat does not feel threatened – or if they do, but that fear is unreasonable – you should not be convicted of making criminal threats.28
In these cases, we ask the jurors to put themselves in the alleged victim’s shoes and argue that no reasonable person would take the threat seriously. We highlight the context surrounding the alleged threat to show that it was baseless.
The Threat Was Protected as Free Speech
PC 422 does not apply to constitutionally protected speech.29 This law only targets individuals who try to instill fear in others, not those who engage in “mere angry utterances or ranting soliloquies, however violent.”30
Example: An inmate told a jail psychotherapist that he was thinking about how he was going to kill his girlfriend once he was released. The court held that PC 422 was not enacted to punish emotional outbursts and that the inmate’s threats were part of the therapy intended only for the therapist’s ears and, as such, are protected.31
This is a defense where context is everything. As long as we can show that your words are protected based on where, how, and to whom you said them, criminal threat charges should not apply.32
You Are the Victim of False Accusations
There is no requirement that an alleged PC 422 victim suffers any physical injury. Consequently, criminal threats is a crime ripe for fake allegations.
We have defended many people who were falsely accused of making criminal threats by angry, jealous, vengeful, or spiteful ex-friends or ex-significant others. In some cases, our clients were falsely accused by suspects trying to escape their own criminal liability.
Our first strategy is to show prosecutors that they have insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is easier in cases where there is no written or electronic recording of the alleged threat.
In addition, we impeach the accuser’s credibility by poring over their past text messages, voicemails, etc., to find instances where their own words contradict their accusations. Once the D.A. sees that the accuser has a motivation to lie and is untrustworthy, the criminal threats charge should be dropped.
3. Penalties
Penal Code 422 PC is a “wobbler,” which means prosecutors may charge it as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on
- the circumstances of the offense, and
- your criminal history.
If convicted of the misdemeanor, you face up to one year in county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine. If convicted of the felony, you face
- up to three years in the California state prison and
- a maximum $10,000 fine.33
If you personally use a deadly or dangerous weapon to communicate your threat, you face an additional and consecutive one-year in the state prison.34
Lastly, if you make threats
- on more than one occasion,
- against multiple people, or
- pursuant to different objectives,
you could face these penalties for each threat that you communicate.
Note that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office will generally not prosecute criminal threats cases unless:
- The offense was related to domestic violence or a hate crime;
- You made repeat threat offenses in the last 24 months;
- There is a documented history of threats from you toward the victim;
- You had a dangerous or deadly weapon during the offense; or
- There was no indication of substance abuse disorder or mental illness.35
California Three Strikes Law
When charged as a felony, a conviction for criminal threats qualifies as a serious felony, which means that it is a “strike.”36
If you are subsequently charged with a felony, and you have a prior “strike” on your record, your sentence will be twice the term otherwise required by law.37
If charged with a third felony, and you have two prior strikes, you will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life in the state prison.38
Because Penal Code 422 PC is a strike, you must serve at least 85% of your sentence before you will be eligible for release on parole.
Additional Penalties
Depending on your criminal threats case, a judge can also order:
- restitution payments to the victim,
- a restraining order barring you from contacting the victim, and/or
- an anger management class.
If your conviction is for a felony, you lose your right to own or possess a gun for life. If your conviction is for a misdemeanor, your gun ban lasts 10 years.
Penal Code 422 PC is also considered a crime of moral turpitude.39 Therefore, a criminal threats conviction potentially subjects you to:
- professional discipline (since criminal convictions can affect professional licenses),40 and
- deportation or removal if you are a legal immigrant or alien.41
4. Related Offenses
- Penal Code 136.1 PC – Dissuading a witness
- Penal Code 186.22 PC – Gang crime enhancement
- Penal Code 243(e)(1) PC – Domestic battery
- Penal Code 273.5(a) PC – Corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant
- Penal Code 273.6 PC – Violating restraining orders
- Penal Code 518 PC – Extortion
- Penal Code 524 PC – Attempted extortion
- Penal Code 601 PC – Aggravated trespass
- Penal Code 646.9 PC – Stalking
- Penal Code 653m PC – Annoying phone calls
- Domestic violence crimes
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- Are Threats Always Violent Crimes? – Michigan Law Review.
- Threats as Criminal Assault – Cleveland State Law Review.
- Cybercrime: Criminal Threats from Cyberspace – Greenwood Publishing Group.
- The Solution to the Real Blackmail Paradox: The Common Link between Blackmail and Other Criminal Threats – Connecticut Law Review.
- Threats, Harassment, and Hate On-line: Recent Developments – Boston University Public Interest Law Journal.
Legal References:
- California Penal Code 422 PC California criminal threats.
(a) 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, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, 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 own 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
(c) “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
- See same.
- See same. See also Penal Code 18 PC — Punishment for felony not otherwise prescribed; alternate sentence to county jail. See also Penal Code 672 PC — Offenses for which no fine prescribed; fine authorized in addition to imprisonment. (“Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may impose a fine on the offender not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) in cases of misdemeanors or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in cases of felonies, in addition to the imprisonment prescribed.”). See also People v. Wiley (Cal. App. 2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 676.
- See same. Penal Code 12022 PC — Terms of imprisonment for committing or attempting felony or violation while armed with firearm or using deadly or dangerous weapon; application to principals in commission of offense or attempted offense; judicial discretion.
- Same.
- See California Penal Code 422 PC California criminal threats law, endnote 1, above.
- CALCRIM No. 1300 – Criminal Threat, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition). See also: In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 630; People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal. 5th 719; Ayala v. Superior Court (Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, 2021) 67 Cal. App. 5th 296.
- People v. Lipsett (Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1060
- People v. Maciel (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 679, 685 (“The phrase “crime which will result in great bodily injury” means the crime, if committed, would result in great bodily injury. (CALJIC No. 9.94.) “[T]here is no requirement that a specific crime or Penal Code violation be threatened [in connection with a Penal Code 422 PC California criminal threats violation].””). CALCRIM No. 1300.
- People v. Franz (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1426.
- See Penal Code 422 PC California’s criminal threats law, endnote 1, above.
- In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 861. (“[California Penal Code] Section 422 does not require that a threat be personally communicated to the victim by the person who makes the threat.) In re David L. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1655.
- People v. Lopez (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 675, 679. (“The terrorist threat statute [currently the criminal threats statute] requires a threat to be “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.” (Penal Code § 422.) The statute does not require an immediate ability to carry out the threat.”)
- People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349. (“” Sustained fear” refers to a state of mind. As one court put it, “[d]efining the word ‘sustained’ [in section 433] by its opposites, we find that it means a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting or transitory.” (People v. Allen (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1151, 1153, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 7 ( Allen ).)”)
- Facts taken from Fierro, above.
- Facts taken from In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132.
- People v. Brooks (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 142, 149.
- California Penal Code 518 — Definition. (“Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.”)
- See Brooks at 147, endnote 17, above.
- See same at 149.
- People v. Wilson (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 789, 806. (“…section 422 [California’s criminal threats law] does not require an intent to actually carry out the threatened crime. ( People v. Martinez (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1220, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 303.) Instead, the defendant must intend for the victim to receive and understand the threat, and the threat must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.”). See also People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1147. See also People v. Fisher (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1556.
- Facts based on People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529.
- See, for example, People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1340; People v. Butler (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 745, 752-753; People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002; and, People v. Garrett (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 962.
- See Melhado, endnote 23, above, at 1538. (“We consider one additional point not expressly addressed by the cases we have mentioned. [Penal Code] Section 422 [California’s criminal threats law] makes illegal a threat which conveys a gravity of purpose and the “immediate prospect of execution.” How are we to understand the requirement that the prospect of execution be immediate, when, as we have seen, threats often have by their very nature some aspect of conditionality: A threat is made to convince the victim to do something “or else.” In light of the analysis and reasoning articulated in Brooks and the other cases, which place important emphasis on the effect the threatening words have on the victim, we understand the word “immediate” to mean that degree of seriousness and imminence which is understood by the victim to be attached to the future prospect of the threat being carried out, should the conditions not be met.”)
- Facts taken from People v. Mosley (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 313.
- See Wilson, endnote 21, above, at 806.
- See same at 807-808. (“A communication that is ambiguous on its face may nonetheless be found to be a criminal threat if the surrounding circumstances clarify the communication’s meaning. [Citation.]” ( George T., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 635.) In determining whether conditional, vague, or ambiguous language constitutes a violation of section 422, the trier of fact may consider “the defendant’s mannerisms, affect, and actions involved in making the threat as well as subsequent actions taken by the defendant.”). See also People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 339-340.
- In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132.
- Mosley v. Walker (2009) 623 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1088. (“Moreover, the prosecution must show that the victim feared the defendant, and this “element has both an objective and subjective component; [the victim’s] fear must have been reasonable, and it must have been real.””)
- See In re Ryan D., endnote 12, above, at 861. (“First, [Penal Code] section 422 [California’s criminal threats law] cannot be applied to constitutionally protected speech. (See People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 968-969.) In fact, a prior legislative effort to punish criminal threats (former §§ 422, 422.5; Stats. 1977, ch. 1146, § 1, pp. 3684-3685) was declared unconstitutional. (People v. Mirmirani (1981) 30 Cal.3d 375.) Recognizing that the Constitution does not necessarily preclude the Legislature from punishing threats, our Supreme Court held that “statutes which attempt to do so must be narrowly directed only to threats which truly pose a danger to society.” ( Id. at p. 388, fn. 10.) The court added that “a threat can be penalized only if ‘on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made [it] is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.’ ” ( Ibid., quoting from United States v. Kelner (2d Cir. 1976) 534 F.2d 1020, 1027.)”)
- People v. Wilson (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 789, 805. People v. Felix (Cal. Ct. App., 2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905.
- See same.
- See Penal Code 422 PC California’s criminal threats law, endnote 1, above.
- California Penal Code Section 12022.
- See Felix, endnote 31, above at 915-916. (“The trial court imposed an eight-month consecutive sentence for each of these two terrorist threat convictions [currently known as criminal threats convictions]. (“[S]ection 654 prohibits multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct.” (People v. Chacon (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 52.) But multiple crimes are not one transaction where the defendant had a chance to reflect between offenses and each offense created a new risk of harm. (People v. Massie (1967) 66 Cal.2d 899, 908; People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1253-1256.) “Separate sentencing is permitted for offenses that are divisible in time” (People v. Kwok, supra, at p. 1254.) The trial court could reasonably infer that each threat was a separate crime. They were not connected because Felix made them at different times at different places. Although Felix made two threats on May 27, the first was directed at two victims, the second was exclusively against Luckhart. Felix contends these crimes were part of a pattern of anger against Luckhart. But Felix had time to reflect before making the second threat. The trial court could reasonably infer that because of his anger he intended the second threat to cause new emotional harm to Luckhart.”); LADA Special Directive 20-07.
- California Penal Code 1192.7 PC — Legislative intent regarding prosecution of violent sex crimes; plea bargaining; limitation; definitions; amendment of section. (“(c) As used in this section, “serious felony” means any of the following:… (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422.”)
- California Penal Code 667 PC — Habitual criminals; enhancement of sentence; amendment of section — California Three Strikes law.
- See same.
- People v. Thornton (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 419, 424. (“a person violating [Penal Code] section 422 [California’s criminal threats law] must intend that the victim receive and understand the threat, and the threat must be such that would cause a reasonable person to fear for the safety of himself or his family. While the statute does not require that the violator intend to cause death or serious bodily injury to the victim, not all serious injuries are suffered to the body. The knowing infliction of mental terror is equally deserving of moral condemnation. In summary, we have no doubt that the making of the threats described in section 422 violates generally accepted standards of moral behavior, whether or not the person intended to actually carry out those threats. Accordingly, section 422 is a crime of moral turpitude.”)
- To learn more about how criminal convictions can affect professional licenses, please visit our pages on professional license issues (which are organized by individual professions).
- 8 U.S. Code Section 1227 — Deportable aliens.