What is a criminal threat in California?

A criminal threat is defined in Penal Code section 422. It applies to the threat of a person (or that person’s family member) intending to cause sustained fear. It need not be made in person, and can be made over an electronic device such as a cell phone, computer or video recorder. Important things to know about criminal threats:

  • No intent to harm a person is necessary — it is sufficient to intend to scare the victim.
  • The penalty for a criminal threat is up to one year in jail for a misdemeanor, or up to four years in state prison if charged as a felony.
  • A criminal threat is a strike offense under California’s Three Strikes Law, and could be used to add significant time (even a life term) for later crimes.

Many people contemplate threats to other during a moment of anger, especially online. But these threats (intending to frighten someone) can have serious consequences even where no actual harm was intended.

Related case summaries

People v. Gonzalez
A threat made through nonverbal conduct is outside the scope of section 422. Under Penal Code section 422, subd.(a), it is a crime to threaten infliction of great bodily injury or death on another “with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or my means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat...” Defendant’s conduct, which included a gun-to-the-sky hand gesture by a likely gang member unaccompanied by words or sound, did not qualify as a statement made verbally even though he may have intended to convey an idea through his conduct. id: 25261
2 Cal.5th 1074 (2017)

Related categories:

Criminal Threats(formerly "terrorist")/Stalking (221)
People v. Orloff
Evidence supported the criminal threats conviction where defendant told the pharmacist over the phone “you’re dead.” Evidence supported defendant’s conviction of a criminal threat under Penal Code section 422, when he told the pharmacist over the phone, “you’re dead.” The victim knew defendant was disabled and confined to a motorized wheelchair, but defendant’s comment was nevertheless a threat that induced sustained fear.id: 24886
2 Cal.App.5th 947 (2nd Dist. 2016)

Related categories:

Criminal Threats(formerly "terrorist")/Stalking (221)

About Pat Ford

Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.

Case of the Day

The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.

People v. Meza
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850
Case number B318310 (4/3/2023)

Related categories:

Exclusionary Rule, generally (good faith exception) (310)
Overbreadth/Staleness (368)