By Deandra Grant, J.D., M.S. (Pharmaceutical Science), ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist
Most people assume that words alone cannot result in a criminal charge. In Texas, they can. Under Penal Code §22.07, a verbal statement, a text message, a social media post, or even a gesture can be prosecuted as a terroristic threat which is a charge that ranges from a Class B misdemeanor to a third-degree felony depending on the circumstances. The name of the offense is misleading. “Terroristic threat” has nothing to do with terrorism in the federal homeland security sense. It is a state-level criminal offense that applies to a wide range of threatening statements made in everyday contexts: heated arguments between spouses, angry text messages after a breakup, workplace confrontations, bar fights, social media posts, and even sarcastic comments taken out of context.
If you have been charged with making a terroristic threat in Texas, you need to understand exactly what the statute requires, what penalty you face, and what defenses are available because this charge is both more serious and more defensible than most people realize.
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense handled my case with diligence and professionalism. Deandra Grant's reputation is stellar and now I know why. She has a team of individuals who provide quality service."
- N. Coulter
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense fights hard for their clients and is always willing to go above and beyond. They are the best firm for DWI cases in DFW and beyond. Definitely hire them to represent you in any pending cases."
- P. Williams
"Deandra Grant made a tough situation so much better. She listened to my concerns and helped me so much with my case. I would recommend her to anyone needing legal services."
- M. Haley
The Offense: Texas Penal Code §22.07
Under §22.07(a), a person commits the offense of terroristic threat if they threaten to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with the intent to:
- (1) Cause a reaction of any type by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
- (2) Place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
- (3) Prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, public place, place of employment, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance;
- (4) Cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply, or other public service;
- (5) Place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
- (6) Influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
The statute is intentionally broad. It does not require that the defendant had the ability to carry out the threat, or that anyone was actually harmed. The prosecution must prove only that the defendant made a threat to commit a violent offense and did so with the specific intent to achieve one of the six listed purposes. The key word is intent. A careless statement, a joke taken out of context, or an angry outburst that was never intended to cause fear may not satisfy this element and that distinction is the foundation of most terroristic threat defenses.
Penalty Classifications
Class B Misdemeanor
A terroristic threat is a Class B misdemeanor if it is committed under subsection (a)(1) (causing a reaction by an emergency agency) and no aggravating circumstances are present. The punishment range is up to 180 days in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
Class A Misdemeanor
A terroristic threat is a Class A misdemeanor if it is committed under subsection (a)(2) (placing any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury). The punishment range is up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000. This is the most commonly charged classification in interpersonal disputes: arguments between partners, neighbors, coworkers, or strangers that escalate to the point where one party says something that is perceived as a threat.
State Jail Felony
A terroristic threat is a state jail felony if it is committed under subsection (a)(3) (threats intended to prevent or interrupt the use of a building, public place, or place of employment) or under subsection (a)(4) (threats intended to impair or interrupt public services). The punishment range is 180 days to 2 years in a state jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000. These charges commonly arise from threats directed at schools, courthouses, government buildings, hospitals, or public utilities.
Third-Degree Felony
A terroristic threat is a third-degree felony if it is committed under subsection (a)(5) — (placing the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury) or under subsection (a)(6) (threats intended to influence government operations). The punishment range is 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. This is the most serious classification and is most commonly applied to bomb threats, mass shooting threats, and threats directed at government officials or law enforcement.
Additionally, under §22.07(e), a terroristic threat directed against a public servant is a third-degree felony if made with the intent to retaliate against or prevent the person from serving as a public servant. This provision frequently applies in cases involving threats against law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and other government officials.
Terroristic Threats in Family Violence Cases
Terroristic threat charges frequently arise in the family violence context. A verbal threat made during an argument between spouses, dating partners, or household members can result in a terroristic threat charge in addition to — or instead of — an assault charge. When the threatening statement is directed at a family member, household member, or person with whom the defendant has or had a dating relationship as defined by Texas Family Code §71.004, the case carries all of the collateral consequences of a family violence finding.
Those collateral consequences are severe and permanent: a federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), permanent ineligibility for nondisclosure (record sealing) under Government Code §411.074 and enhancement of any future family violence offense to felony-level under Penal Code §22.01(b)(2). A terroristic threat conviction with a family violence finding can be more damaging to a defendant’s long-term future than the jail time associated with the charge itself.
Defenses to Terroristic Threat Charges
The First Amendment and the “True Threat” Doctrine
The First Amendment protects speech, including offensive, provocative, and deeply unpleasant speech. The government can criminalize only a narrow category of speech known as “true threats” (i.e. statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group).
In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), which established the constitutional standard for true threat prosecutions. The Court held that the First Amendment requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements. Specifically, the prosecution must prove at minimum that the defendant acted recklessly in that they consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their statements would be understood as threats of violence.
This is a significant defense tool. Before Counterman, many jurisdictions, including Texas, applied an objective “reasonable person” standard: would a reasonable person perceive the statement as a threat? After Counterman, the prosecution must also show that the defendant was at least reckless as to whether their communication would be perceived as threatening. A defendant who genuinely did not realize their words would be taken as a threat because of context, tone, relationship, cultural norms, or mental state may have a viable constitutional defense.
Lack of Specific Intent
Section 22.07 requires that the defendant made the threat with the intent to achieve one of the six specified purposes (cause fear, disrupt services, influence government, etc.). This is a specific intent offense. The prosecution must prove not only that the defendant made a threatening statement, but that they did so with the specific purpose of causing one of the listed results.
An angry outburst made in the heat of an argument without any actual intent to cause fear or to disrupt anything may not satisfy this element. A statement made out of frustration, exaggeration, or emotional distress, with no intent to follow through and no intent to produce fear, can be challenged on the specific intent element. The defense can present evidence of the context: the relationship between the parties, the circumstances that provoked the statement, the defendant’s immediate behavior after making the statement (did they walk away? did they apologize? did they escalate?), and any history of similar language that was never acted upon.
Context, Hyperbole, and Conditional Threats
Not every angry or violent-sounding statement is a criminal threat. Context matters. Texas courts have recognized that statements must be evaluated in context, and that hyperbole, venting, dark humor, rap lyrics, and conditional statements (“if you do X, I’ll do Y”) may not constitute true threats.
Conditional threats are particularly common in terroristic threat prosecutions. “If you come near my house again, I’ll kill you” is a conditional statement. Whether it constitutes a terroristic threat depends on the totality of the circumstances: Was there a genuine dispute? Was the defendant expressing a defensive posture or an aggressive one? Was the statement made face-to-face, in a text message, or on social media? Was there any action taken to carry it out? These fact-intensive questions are exactly where defense attorneys can create reasonable doubt.
Case Results
Social Media and Electronic Communications
An increasing number of terroristic threat prosecutions arise from social media posts, text messages, and online communications. These cases present unique defense opportunities. Text lacks tone and body language, making it easier for the recipient or law enforcement to interpret a statement as more threatening than the speaker intended. Emojis, context within a longer conversation, the platform’s culture and norms, and the speaker’s history of similar posts can all be used to challenge the prosecution’s characterization of the statement.
False Accusation and Fabrication
Terroristic threat charges are uniquely susceptible to false accusations because the offense requires no physical evidence. There is no injury, no weapon, no forensic evidence. There is only someone’s claim that a threatening statement was made. In domestic disputes, custody battles, neighbor conflicts, and workplace disagreements, the incentive to fabricate or exaggerate a threatening statement can be significant. The defense must investigate the accuser’s motive, credibility, and the consistency of their account with any available corroborating evidence (or the lack thereof).
Mental State and Diminished Capacity
In some cases, the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged threat is relevant. Individuals experiencing a mental health crisis, intoxication, or extreme emotional disturbance may make statements that sound threatening but lack the specific intent required by §22.07. While voluntary intoxication is not a defense to reckless conduct under Texas law, it can be relevant to the question of whether the defendant formed the specific intent to cause fear or disrupt services. Mental health evidence can be presented through expert testimony to challenge the intent element.
Terroristic Threat Defense in Waco and McLennan County
Terroristic threat cases in McLennan County are prosecuted through the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office and heard in the county’s district and county courts. Misdemeanor terroristic threats are handled in the McLennan County Courts at Law, while felony terroristic threats proceed through the 19th, 54th, or 74th District Courts. Bond conditions in these cases frequently include no-contact orders, GPS monitoring, and social media restrictions which are conditions that can significantly impact the defendant’s daily life even before trial.
At Deandra Grant Law, we defend terroristic threat cases across McLennan County and all of our North Texas markets. Our team combines forensic science training, digital forensics capability, and deep trial experience in criminal defense. We understand the constitutional dimensions of these cases (the First Amendment, the Counterman recklessness standard, the specific intent requirement) and we build defenses that challenge the prosecution’s case at every level.
With offices in Dallas, Fort Worth, Allen, Denton, Waco, and Rockwall, Deandra Grant Law represents clients facing terroristic threat charges throughout Texas. Call (214) 225-7117 or visit texasdwisite.com for a free consultation.
Firm Accolades
Better Business Bureaus
D Magazine
