Threats & Stalking Case Study
Whether the defendant's statement constituted a 'true threat' for purposes of the threatening communications statute.
The court reversed the conviction, finding that the defendant's statement — made in the heat of an argument — did not constitute a 'true threat' because a reasonable person would not have interpreted it as a serious expression of intent to commit violence. The court held that the First Amendment protects hyperbolic and emotional speech that does not constitute a true threat.
The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including hyperbolic, angry, and offensive speech. D.J. Rivera challenges threatening communications charges by arguing that the alleged threat was not a 'true threat' — that a reasonable person would not have interpreted it as a serious expression of intent to commit violence. Context, tone, and the relationship between the parties are critical to this analysis.
This case involves § 18.2-60 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation