What is the charge of Terroristic Threats?

18 Pa.C.S. § 2706 is the statute that addresses Terroristic Threats.  It states, 

(a)  Offense defined. --A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

   (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

   (2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or

   (3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

The Commonwealth must prove that 1) the defendant made a threat to commit a crime of violence, and 2) the  [*7]  threat was communicated with the intent to terrorize another or with reckless disregard for the risk of causing terror. Commonwealth v. Kelley, 444 Pa. Super. 377 (1995).

Defenses to Terroristic Threats

There are certain limitations to a defense, such as "'Neither the ability to carry out the threat nor a belief by the person threatened that it will be carried out is an essential element of the crime.'" Commonwealth v. Hudgens, 400 Pa. Super. 79 (Pa. Super. 1990).  So, it doesn't mean you have to have the ability or belief, it just means that a person tries to "terrorize" another -- "Rather, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute is the psychological distress that follows from an invasion of another's sense of personal security." Commonwealth v. Tizer, 454 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Super. 1996).  

If the threats were done in a "spur of the moment"  or via "transitory anger", there may be a defense from you Bucks County criminal lawyer, as the statute "Is not intended by this section to penalize mere spur-of-the-moment threats which result from anger." Commonwealth v. Kidd, 296 Pa.Super. 393, 442 A.2d 826 (1982). If you person is confronted with, for example, a threat or act of violence, their response to the act could be a spur of the moment action from transitory anger.  A good case on this defense is Commonwealth v. Anneski, 362 Pa. Super. 580