In the wake of Facebook threats, which are becoming all the rage these days at the U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court had occasion to address the law of attempting to make a criminal threat.

In People v. Chandler, the court – in an opinion by newish Justice Goodwin Liu – had to decide whether attempting to make a threat required only a subjective intent to threaten, or additionally required that the threat be objectively threatening to a reasonable person.

Attempted Criminal Threats

The case involves Ben Chandler Jr., who made some increasingly threatening statements to a woman who lived around the corner. They began with just statements, evolved into spray paint, and ended in a face-to-face confrontation. The woman, Jaime Lopez, called the police. In fact, she called them seven times. Chandler also threatened another woman.

First Amendment Concerns

Criminalizing any kind of speech implicates the First Amendment, and Liu carefully explained why both a subjective and an objective component were required if the crime of attempting to make a criminal threat was going to pass constitutional muster. A “true threat” is not protected by the First Amendment not because of the intent of the speaker but because of the “effect on a reasonable listener of the speech.” This is because a threat is unprotected, as it triggers fear in the listener. If a speaker intends for his speech to cause fear, but there was never a realistic chance that it was going to anyway, then there hasn’t even been an attempted threat; consequently, the speech would fall on the “constitutional” side of the line, as threats are an exception to the general rule that speech is protected.

Speculation about incitement was just that: speculation. It’s “not clear how speech that is not objectively threatening would trigger, except in the most speculative way, a possibility that the threatened violence will occur,” Liu wrote. In the instant case, said Liu, Chandler’s statements were objectively and subjectively threatening. The purpose of the opinion in People v. Chandler was just to clarify the elements of the crime.

Dissent

Justice Carol Corrigan, joined by two others, dissented. She didn’t think any interpretation was necessary, as the statute wasn’t ambiguous on the issue, and there was no constitutional problem: “Any criminal attempt requires a specific intent to commit the crime completed” – and the crime of making a criminal threat doesn’t require that the threat reasonably place the victim in fear.

Related Resources:

  • Are Facebook Threats Real? (Slate)
  • California Supreme Court: ‘Wannabe’ Pimp’s Conviction Upheld (FindLaw’s California Case Law)
  • Snippets: Lyrical Threats, SSM Victors Want Cert., SCOTUS <3 Cops (FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court Blog)
  • True Threat or Political Speech? 2nd Circuit Rules on Free Speech (FindLaw’s U.S. Second Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules