Are You Charged with Terroristic Threats?
In Georgia, the criminal offense of terroristic threats is a serious charge that can have significant legal consequences, including imprisonment and substantial fines. Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37, the state criminalizes making threats to commit violent acts with the intent to cause fear or disrupt normal societal operations.
However, as with any criminal offense, there are defenses available to those accused under this statute.
As Georgia criminal lawyers we wanted to write a blog post exploring the key defenses that can be raised in response to charges under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37, examining both the statutory language and legal principles that shape the law.
Whether you're facing charges or seeking information for someone else, this blog will provide you with a thorough understanding of the potential defenses available in Georgia’s terroristic threats cases.
What is the Terroristic Threats Law in Georgia?
Terroristic threats under Georgia law are broadly defined by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37, which states, in summary:
A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence (with the purpose of terrorizing another person or group) or when the threat is made with the intent to disrupt public functions or services.
The law criminalizes the act of threatening to cause damage, harm, or death to another individual, property, or the general public, particularly if the intent is to terrorize or disrupt normal life. Under this statute, even if the person making the threat never intends to follow through, simply making the threat with the intent to instill fear can lead to criminal charges.
However, making a terroristic threat is not automatically an act of criminality. To be convicted, the prosecution must prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including the threat’s nature, the intent behind it, and the effect on the intended target.
Elements of a Terroristic Threat Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37
To be convicted of a terroristic threat under Georgia law, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
- The Threat: The accused must have made a threat to commit a violent crime, such as harm, damage to property, or death. This threat can be made verbally, in writing, or through other forms of communication.
- Intent to Terrorize or Disrupt: The accused must have made the threat with the specific intent to either:
- Terrorize the person or group to whom the threat was directed, or
- Disrupt public functions, services, or the normal operations of an institution.
- Reasonable Interpretation: The threat must be such that a reasonable person could interpret it as a genuine threat of harm or disruption.
- No Need for Action: Under the law, the accused does not need to carry out the threat or even have the means to do so. The mere communication of the threat, coupled with the intent to terrorize or disrupt, is enough for criminal liability.
Common Defenses Against Terroristic Threats Charges
When facing charges under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37, there are several potential defenses that may be raised in an attempt to avoid conviction. Below are some of the primary defenses used in Georgia terroristic threats cases.
1. Lack of Intent to Terrorize or Disrupt Public Services
One of the strongest defenses in a terroristic threats case is challenging the intent behind the threat. If the prosecution cannot prove that the defendant intended to terrorize the victim or disrupt public functions, the case may fall apart. For example, if the defendant made a statement that was interpreted as a threat but was not made with the intent to cause fear or disrupt operations, they may have a valid defense.
In some cases, individuals may make angry or rash statements without intending to actually terrorize anyone. For example, a heated argument or emotionally charged statement might be misconstrued as a threat, even though the person making the statement did not intend to follow through or create fear. In such cases, the defense may argue that the statement was made in the heat of the moment and lacked any true malicious intent.
2. The Statement Was Not a True Threat
A defendant may argue that their statement was not a "true" terroristic threat under the law. This could involve showing that the words spoken were ambiguous, made in jest, or were not serious enough to be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable person.
For example, if a person says, "I’m going to blow this place up!" but it is said in a comedic tone or during a casual conversation, the defense may argue that no reasonable person would interpret that statement as an actual threat. In Georgia, for a statement to qualify as a terroristic threat, it must create a reasonable fear of harm or disruption.
This defense may also hinge on proving that the words used did not create a reasonable belief of immediate danger. For instance, statements that are vague or general in nature, such as "something bad is going to happen," may not meet the legal threshold for a terroristic threat under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37.
3. Freedom of Speech
Another potential defense in a terroristic threats case is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not without limits, and certain types of speech are not protected, including threats of violence.
However, the key here is that the speech must be analyzed in context. If the statement was not a true threat but rather an expression of frustration, anger, or opinion, the defense may argue that the defendant was merely exercising their constitutional right to free speech. Courts will look at whether the statement went beyond protected speech and became a direct, specific threat of violence.
4. Lack of Evidence of a Threat
In some cases, the defense may challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution. This could involve disputing the credibility of the witnesses, questioning whether the statement was actually made, or arguing that the context of the statement was misunderstood or misrepresented.
For example, the defense could present evidence showing that the alleged threat was fabricated, misheard, or exaggerated. If there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant made the threat with the necessary intent or that the alleged victim reasonably believed it was a legitimate threat, the case could be dismissed.
5. False Allegations
Unfortunately, some individuals may make false claims of terroristic threats for various reasons. Whether driven by personal animosity, a desire for revenge, or misunderstandings, false allegations of terroristic threats can occur. In such cases, the defense may argue that the defendant is the victim of a lie or that the alleged threat was misinterpreted.
To prove this defense, the defendant may present evidence that supports their version of events. This could include alibis, witness testimonies, or other evidence that refutes the alleged victim’s claims.
6. Mental Illness or Lack of Mental State
In some cases, the defense may raise the argument that the defendant was not mentally competent at the time of making the threat. If the defendant has a history of mental illness or was experiencing a mental health crisis when the alleged threat occurred, they may have lacked the mental capacity to form the intent necessary for a conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37.
This defense may involve expert testimony from a psychologist or psychiatrist to establish that the defendant was not able to understand the nature of their actions or appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct due to a mental condition. In such cases, the defendant may be eligible for treatment instead of criminal punishment.
7. Lack of Jurisdiction or Authority
In some cases, the issue of jurisdiction may arise if the alleged threat did not occur within the geographical jurisdiction of Georgia, or if it was made in a context outside the scope of the statute (e.g., involving federal agencies or national security concerns). If the defendant can prove that the threat falls outside the scope of Georgia’s terroristic threats law, they may be able to avoid conviction.
Penalties for Terroristic Threats Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37
The penalties for a conviction under Georgia’s terroristic threats statute can be severe. A person convicted of a terroristic threat in Georgia faces various sentencing options, including:
- Prison time
- Fines
- Classes assigned by the court
- Probation
The severity of the sentence can vary based on the specific circumstances of the case, including whether the defendant has a criminal record, whether the threat involved a protected person (e.g., law enforcement or government officials), and whether the threat led to any harm or substantial fear.
Terroristic Threats Lawyer Near Me
Charges under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37 for terroristic threats are serious and carry heavy penalties, but defendants have a variety of defenses available to contest these charges.
Whether it's proving a lack of intent, challenging the interpretation of the statement, or showing that the threat was not made in a serious context, those accused of terroristic threats in Georgia can defend themselves with the right legal strategy.
If you are facing charges under Georgia’s terroristic threats law, it is crucial to consult with us, experienced terroristic threats lawyers, who can assess the specifics of your case and provide you with the best possible defense. With skilled representation, it may be possible to avoid the severe consequences that come with a terroristic threats conviction. The Sherman Law Group is available 24/7 to help you.