Can You Go to Jail for Threatening Someone Over Text?
Learn how legal systems assess threats made via text, including factors that influence charges, prosecution, and potential sentencing outcomes.
Sending a threatening text message, even in a moment of anger, can lead to serious legal consequences. As digital communication becomes more prevalent, law enforcement and courts increasingly view texted threats as potential criminal acts. Determining when a message crosses the line from protected speech into a punishable offense involves understanding specific legal standards.
Laws Governing Threatening Messages
Threats made via text message are not shielded from the law simply because they are digital. Both federal and state statutes address threatening communications sent electronically. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 875, prohibits transmitting communications across state lines or in foreign commerce that contain a threat to injure another person. This applies regardless of the medium, including text messages.
State laws also cover threatening communications, often under statutes related to harassment, stalking, or criminal threats. These laws typically define electronic communications, including texts, as means by which these offenses can be committed. For instance, state statutes may forbid using electronic methods to threaten injury to a person or property with intent to harass or alarm. Some laws specifically target “cyberstalking” or “electronic communication harassment,” encompassing repeated threatening messages meant to cause fear.
A key legal principle is the “true threat” doctrine, shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the First Amendment protects free speech, it does not cover “true threats.” The Court, in Virginia v. Black (2003), defined these as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” The focus is whether the speaker intended to convey a genuine threat that would put a reasonable person in fear of harm, distinguishing it from jokes or angry outbursts lacking intimidatory intent.
The required mental state of the sender is also critical. Following Elonis v. United States (2015), which required more than showing a reasonable person would find a statement threatening, the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). The Court ruled that for a statement to be an unprotected true threat under criminal law, the prosecution must demonstrate the speaker acted with at least recklessness regarding the communication’s threatening nature. This means the sender consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their message would be perceived as threatening violence. Therefore, laws assess not just the words used, but also the sender’s state of mind and the context to determine if a text message constitutes an illegal threat.
Prosecutors’ Burden of Proof
To convict someone for sending a threatening text, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest legal standard in the U.S. This requires presenting evidence convincing enough that no other logical explanation exists besides the defendant’s guilt.
The prosecution must demonstrate that the text message qualifies as a “true threat,” which falls outside First Amendment protection. This involves proving the defendant sent the message and that its content expressed an intent to commit unlawful violence. Evidence typically includes the message itself, surrounding context like prior communications, the relationship between the individuals, and the defendant’s actions.
Crucially, prosecutors must also establish the defendant’s mental state when sending the message. As established in Counterman v. Colorado, the minimum required mental state is recklessness. The prosecution needs to show the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the text would be seen as threatening violence. It isn’t sufficient to prove only that a reasonable person would find the message threatening; evidence must point to the defendant’s subjective awareness of the risk. Proving recklessness might involve examining the language used, the frequency of messages, or other actions suggesting the defendant knew the message could be perceived as a threat but sent it anyway. Failure to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, including the sender’s reckless state of mind, prevents a conviction.
Criminal Charges Based on Threat Type
The specific criminal charge stemming from a threatening text depends on the threat’s nature, the context, and applicable laws. A single offensive message might result in different charges than repeated texts threatening violence.
Common charges include harassment, stalking, and making criminal threats (also known as terroristic threats). Harassment charges often apply to communications intended to annoy or alarm. Many state laws include electronic communications like texts under harassment statutes, especially if they involve offensive language or are sent at inconvenient times. A single, less severe threatening text might lead to misdemeanor harassment charges.
Stalking charges usually arise from a pattern of threatening texts intended to cause fear. Unlike isolated harassment, stalking involves a course of conduct. State laws often cover electronic communications (cyberstalking) and focus on behavior that willfully and repeatedly harasses someone, making them fear for their safety. A series of threatening texts, particularly combined with other unwanted contact, could elevate the charge from harassment to stalking, often a felony.
Charges for making criminal threats typically involve explicit threats of death or serious injury that place the recipient in reasonable fear. A single text can suffice if it conveys a specific, credible threat of significant violence. These are generally considered serious offenses, often classified as felonies.
If a threatening text crosses state lines, federal charges under 18 U.S.C. Section 875 may apply. This law makes transmitting any communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to injure another person a federal crime. Federal law also addresses extortion threats under 18 U.S.C. Section 875(d). The classification of the charge hinges on factors like the threat’s severity, repetition, and whether state or national borders were crossed.
Penalties and Sentencing
Penalties for sending threatening texts vary based on the threat’s severity, the specific law violated, and whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony. Less severe threats, often charged as harassment, are typically misdemeanors. Misdemeanor convictions can result in fines, probation, and jail time, often up to one year.
Threats involving serious harm (like death or significant injury) or those part of stalking behavior are frequently charged as felonies, carrying much harsher penalties. Potential state prison sentences can range from over one year to ten years or more, depending on the state and the crime’s specifics. Fines are also substantially higher. Under federal law 18 U.S.C. Section 875(c), transmitting an interstate threat to injure is a felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison and significant fines. Threats involving extortion or kidnapping under federal law can lead to sentences up to twenty years.
Sentencing is influenced by various factors. Judges consider the threat’s nature and credibility, its impact on the victim, and whether it was part of a pattern. Aggravating factors, like prior convictions or targeting a vulnerable victim, can increase sentences. Mitigating factors, such as no prior record, genuine remorse, or a relevant mental health condition, might lead to lighter sentences.
Additional consequences often include restraining or protective orders barring contact with the victim. Probation, requiring adherence to conditions like counseling or regular check-ins, is common. A criminal conviction, especially a felony, creates a permanent record, potentially hindering employment, housing, and professional licensing.
Criminal Case Timeline
A criminal case involving threatening texts begins when the message is reported to law enforcement. Police investigate by gathering evidence, such as the texts, witness interviews, and possibly phone records, which may require a search warrant under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
If police find sufficient evidence (probable cause), they may arrest the suspect or issue a court summons. Following arrest, the suspect is booked. Within 24 to 72 hours, the accused has an initial court appearance where a judge informs them of the charges, considers bail, and advises them of their right to counsel.1FBI. Federal Criminal Justice Process Overview
The next step is the arraignment, where the defendant is formally charged and enters a plea (guilty, not guilty, or no contest). A “not guilty” plea moves the case to the pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, discovery occurs, where prosecution and defense exchange evidence under rules like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. For text threats, this includes the messages, phone records, witness statements, and digital forensic analysis. Both sides use this information to build their cases.
Attorneys may file pre-trial motions. Common examples include motions to suppress evidence obtained illegally (violating the Fourth Amendment) or motions to dismiss charges, perhaps arguing the texts aren’t “true threats” or speedy trial rights (Sixth Amendment) were violated. Plea bargaining, where the defendant might plead guilty to lesser charges or for a recommended sentence to avoid trial, often happens during this stage.
If no plea agreement is reached, the case goes to trial. After jury selection (unless it’s a judge-only bench trial), both sides give opening statements. The prosecution presents evidence, including the texts and testimony from the recipient and investigators. The defense cross-examines witnesses and presents its own case. Following closing arguments, the judge instructs the jury on the law. A unanimous verdict is typically required. An acquittal (not guilty) ends the case due to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. A guilty verdict leads to the sentencing phase.