Criminal Threats in Washington, D.C.
| Misdemeanor statute | D.C. Code § 22-407 |
|---|---|
| Misdemeanor maximum penalty | 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine |
| Felony statute | D.C. Code § 22-1810 |
| Felony maximum penalty | 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine |
| Court | D.C. Superior Court |
What is a criminal threat in Washington, D.C.?
It is a criminal offense in Washington, D.C. to threaten bodily harm against another person. Misdemeanor threats are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine under D.C. Code § 22-407.
A threat to kidnap or injure another person, or to damage another person's property, may be charged as felony threats under D.C. Code § 22-1810, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
What must the government prove for misdemeanor threats in D.C.?
To obtain a conviction for misdemeanor threats in D.C., the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant communicated words to another person, that the words would cause an ordinary listener reasonably to believe that the threatened person would suffer bodily harm, and that the defendant spoke the words for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the words would be understood as a threat.
The government does not need to prove that the defendant intended to carry out the threat. Nor does it need to prove that the intended target actually heard the threat, provided the threat was communicated to someone.
- The defendant communicated words to another person.
- The words would cause an ordinary listener reasonably to believe that the threatened person would suffer bodily harm.
- The defendant spoke the words for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the words would be understood as a threat.
When are threats a felony in D.C.?
Under D.C. Code § 22-1810, a person may be charged with felony threats in D.C. for threatening to kidnap another person, to injure another person, or to physically damage another person's property.
A felony threats conviction carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
What is a "true threat" in a D.C. threats case?
A "true threat" is a serious expression conveying that the speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence. Cruel, insulting, or offensive language does not automatically constitute a criminal threat. Nor does a threat to embarrass someone or harm the person's reputation or livelihood ordinarily constitute a threat of bodily harm.
Courts in D.C. threats cases examine the words in context.
- The relationship between the parties.
- Their prior interactions.
- The speaker's tone and body language.
- The circumstances in which the statement was made.
- Whether the speaker appeared capable of carrying out the threatened act.
What are the common defenses to a threats charge in D.C.?
The statement was protected speech: the First Amendment protects speech unless it falls within a recognized category of unprotected speech, such as a true threat. A defendant may argue that the words were offensive, angry, or disturbing but did not constitute a serious expression of an intent to commit unlawful violence.
The words were a joke, hyperbole, or angry exaggeration: a statement must be evaluated in context. Words that appear threatening when viewed in isolation may amount only to a joke, puffery, political rhetoric, or an angry exaggeration. A threat is "more than language in a vacuum."
A reasonable person would not have believed the threat could be carried out: the speaker's apparent ability to act is part of the surrounding context used to determine whether an ordinary listener would reasonably understand the words as a threat.
The statement was conditional or hypothetical: conditional or hypothetical statements may not amount to criminal threats, depending on their wording and context. However, the fact that a statement is conditional does not automatically make it lawful.
Does the government have to prove I meant the threat?
In a D.C. threats case, the government must prove more than the fact that the defendant communicated words that sounded threatening. The government must establish that the defendant acted "with the purpose to threaten or with knowledge that his words would be perceived as a threat."
The government does not, however, need to prove that the defendant intended to carry out the threat.