Defenses to Georgia’s Terroristic Threats Law Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37

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.

A Further Analysis of Potential Defenses to the Charge of Terroristic Threats

Below is an analysis of common defenses to terroristic threats charges, along with their strengths and weaknesses:

1. Lack of Intent to Cause Terror or Harm

Defense: The defendant may argue that their statement or action did not have the intent to cause fear or intimidation, which is a key element of the offense. For example, the defendant could claim that the statement was made in jest, was hyperbolic, or was taken out of context. The defendant could argue they did not intend to incite terror or harm, but instead made the comment impulsively or without serious intent.
Strengths: This defense is effective if the defendant can demonstrate that the alleged threat was not intended to cause fear or alarm. Context is key here—if the defendant was in a setting where the threat was clearly a joke or part of a heated argument without actual malice, this can be a powerful argument.
Weaknesses: If the statement was made in a manner that is objectively threatening, or the recipient reasonably interpreted it as a genuine threat, this defense may not succeed. The prosecution may argue that the context and circumstances surrounding the statement show that the defendant intended to cause fear or harm.

2. First Amendment/Free Speech Protection

Defense: The defendant may argue that their speech was protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The defense may claim that their statement was an expression of opinion, political speech, or part of a heated discussion and should not be considered a criminal threat.
Strengths: The First Amendment protects speech, and if the threat was part of a public discourse or a statement of political opinion (e.g., criticizing government actions), this could be a strong defense, especially in cases where the statement was made in a context of free expression.
Weaknesses: Threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. If the statement can be reasonably construed as an actual threat, rather than just an opinion or a political statement, the courts are likely to rule that it falls outside the protections of free speech. The "true threat" doctrine establishes that speech meant to incite fear of violence is not constitutionally protected.

3. The Statement Was Not Credible (Unlikely to Be Taken Seriously)

Defense: The defendant may argue that the statement they made was so clearly not credible or realistic that no reasonable person would have taken it as a serious threat. For example, the defendant could argue they made a fantastical or absurd statement (e.g., "I’m going to blow up the moon"), which no rational person would interpret as a legitimate threat.
Strengths: This defense can be powerful if the statement made was absurd or unlikely to be taken seriously. The defendant may present evidence showing the context and tone in which the statement was made, highlighting that it was far-fetched or hyperbolic in nature.
Weaknesses: The prosecution can argue that, regardless of the statement’s credibility, it was still made with the intent to cause fear or panic. Even an unlikely or exaggerated threat can cause alarm if it is communicated in a way that leads others to fear harm. The court may focus on how the statement was received by the listener, rather than the statement’s inherent credibility.

4. False Accusations (Wrongful Allegation)

Defense: The defendant may claim that they were falsely accused of making a terroristic threat. In cases of domestic disputes, workplace conflicts, or personal grudges, it’s possible that someone could have fabricated or exaggerated the defendant's words to gain an advantage in a legal proceeding or to cause harm to the defendant’s reputation.
Strengths: This defense works well if there is reason to believe that the accuser had a motive to lie or misinterpret the defendant’s words. For example, the defendant can point to inconsistencies in the accuser’s testimony or provide evidence that the accuser has a history of making false statements or that the context was misrepresented.
Weaknesses: False accusations can be difficult to prove, especially if the accuser’s testimony is convincing and consistent. Additionally, if there were any witnesses to the alleged statement or if the statement was recorded, it may undermine the false accusation defense.

5. Lack of the “Threat of Violence” Element

Defense: Georgia law requires the threat to be of violence or a violent crime. The defendant may argue that their statement did not involve a threat of violence or did not involve a crime that falls within the statute’s definition of a "violent crime." For example, a threat to damage property or engage in non-violent acts may not meet the threshold for a terroristic threat charge.
Strengths: If the statement was ambiguous or did not explicitly involve a threat of violence or harm, the defense may successfully argue that the statement does not satisfy the legal definition of a terroristic threat.
Weaknesses: The prosecution may argue that the threat was implied or intended to cause fear, even if it wasn’t explicitly violent. For example, threatening to "destroy someone’s life" might be interpreted as a form of psychological violence, which could meet the statute's requirements.

6. Self-Defense or Defense of Others

Defense: The defendant could argue that the statement was made in the context of self-defense or defending others from imminent harm. In this context, the defendant might have threatened violence as a response to an immediate threat to their safety or the safety of another person.
Strengths: If the defendant was genuinely in a situation where they were acting to protect themselves or others, the defense of self-defense may be compelling. If the threat was made as a result of a confrontation where the defendant had a reasonable belief that they or someone else was in danger, this could help avoid a conviction.
Weaknesses: For this defense to succeed, the defendant would need to show that the threat was reasonable and proportionate to the perceived danger. If the defendant’s response was excessive or if there was no immediate threat, this defense may not succeed.

7. Tactical Use of Provocation or Preemptive Strike

Defense: The defendant may argue that the threat was made in a provoked or preemptive context—where they made the statement in response to another party’s provocative behavior or to prevent an impending attack. This defense is often used in heated exchanges, where one party claims to be making a threat out of necessity to protect themselves or defuse a conflict.
Strengths: If the statement was made in a moment of heightened emotion or during an altercation, showing that the threat was made as part of de-escalating the situation can sometimes help. The defendant may argue that their action was a reaction to a threat of harm or that they used the threat to avoid worse consequences.
Weaknesses: This defense can be weak because it may still not justify a violent threat, especially if it was disproportionate or unnecessary. The courts may focus on whether the threat was made with the intent to intimidate or terrorize, regardless of provocation.

8. Insufficient Evidence of Threat

Defense: A key element of the crime is whether a "threat" was actually made. The defense may argue that the alleged statement does not constitute a true threat as defined by law. For example, the defendant might argue that what was said was vague, conditional, or unclear, or that the statement did not indicate an intent to carry out any violent act.
Strengths: If there is a lack of concrete evidence that the statement constituted a threat, or if the statement was too vague or conditional, this defense could be very effective.
Weaknesses: The prosecution may argue that the language was threatening enough to reasonably interpret as a threat. The courts may focus on the perceived intent behind the statement and the context in which it was made.

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.