Terroristic Threat in Texas — Penal Code §22.07 Charges and Defense
Co-Founding Partners
Texas Bar verified. Reggie London (Texas Bar No. 24043514) and Njeri London (Texas Bar No. 24043266) are the co-founding partners of L and L Law Group, PLLC — based at 5899 Preston Rd, Suite 101 in Frisco, Texas (Collin County), with many 5-star Google reviews, and available 24/7 for criminal defense consultations.
Table of Contents
The §22.07 statute
Penal Code §22.07 has six different prohibition subsections, each with different penalty levels:
- §22.07(a)(1) — Threat to cause reaction of any type to defendant's threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies. Class A misdemeanor.
- §22.07(a)(2) — Threat with intent to place person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Class B misdemeanor (Class A if family violence-related).
- §22.07(a)(3) — Threat with intent to prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place. Class A misdemeanor (third-degree felony if certain places).
- §22.07(a)(4) — Threat to cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply, or other public service. Third-degree felony.
- §22.07(a)(5) — Threat with intent to place public or substantial group of public in fear of serious bodily injury. Third-degree felony.
- §22.07(a)(6) — Threat with intent to influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of federal, state, or local government. Third-degree felony.
Common terroristic threat scenarios
Most terroristic threat prosecutions in Texas fall into a few patterns:
Domestic disputes. Threats made during heated arguments — "I'll kill you," "I'm going to hurt you" — charged under §22.07(a)(2). Family violence enhancement under §22.07(c-1) raises this to Class A misdemeanor when made against a family or household member.
School threats. Threats against schools, school buses, or specific students charged under §22.07(a)(3) and other provisions. Often involves social media posts or text messages. Enhanced when targeting specific places under §22.07(c-2).
Workplace threats. Disgruntled employees making threats against employers, coworkers, or workplace facilities. Various enhancement potentials.
Bomb threats. Threats to explode or use weapons against buildings or public spaces. Typically charged at felony level under §22.07(a)(3) or (4).
Public service threats. Threats against utility systems, transportation, communications. Felony-level under §22.07(a)(4).
Government threats. Threats made to influence official action — against judges, prosecutors, elected officials. Felony-level under §22.07(a)(6).
Defense angles
Defenses to terroristic threat charges:
Lack of intent. The statute requires specific intent (to place in fear, to prevent occupation, etc.). Where the statement was hyperbole, joke, frustration, or "venting," intent may be contested. Texas case law distinguishes between actual threats and protected speech under Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).
True threat versus hyperbole. The First Amendment protects most speech; only "true threats" lose protection. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), and Texas case law establish that the threat must be a "serious expression" of intent to commit unlawful violence. Statements that no reasonable person would take as a serious threat of imminent harm may be protected speech.
Conditional or contingent threats. "If you don't stop, I'll..." can fail the imminence requirement, depending on circumstances.
Recipient's fear unreasonable. Where the alleged victim's fear was unreasonable given the actual statement, the case may fail.
First Amendment. Political speech, artistic expression, and similar protected categories may shield certain statements from prosecution under §22.07.
Identity issues. Where the threat was made via electronic communication (text, social media, email), establishing the defendant as the speaker may be contested.
Have a Texas legal question?
Call L and L Law Group for a free, confidential consultation. We handle criminal defense across Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties.
Call (972) 370-5060In our practice defending Texas criminal cases, we have represented clients in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant County criminal courts on the full Texas Penal Code and Health & Safety Code spectrum. Reggie's prosecutor background in Dallas County means we know the State's evidentiary playbook; Njeri's trial-trained motion practice anchors the suppression-driven defense work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a "terroristic threat" the same as a real terrorism charge?
No. Despite the name, "terroristic threat" under Texas law is a relatively low-level threat charge, often a misdemeanor. It does not require terrorist motivation, organization affiliation, or large-scale political objective. The name is misleading; the offense covers ordinary threats made with statutorily defined intents.
Can text messages count as terroristic threats?
Yes. The statute does not require a specific medium. Verbal threats, written threats, text messages, social media posts, and emails all qualify. The medium affects evidence-collection but not the substantive offense.
What about angry venting between family members?
Statements made in heat of the moment that no reasonable person would take as serious threats may not qualify under Watts v. United States. However, the statute is often applied broadly, and family violence-context threats are charged routinely. Defense focus on the actual statement, the surrounding context, and whether it was a "serious expression" of imminent harm.
Are political threats covered by the First Amendment?
Sometimes. The Supreme Court has distinguished between "true threats" (unprotected) and political hyperbole or rhetorical exaggeration (protected). The line is fact-specific. Statements like "the President should be killed" generally fall closer to political hyperbole; specific operational statements about specific officials cross into true threats.
What if I made a threat but didn't actually plan to carry it out?
Intent to actually carry out the threat is not required. The intent element is the defendant's purpose in making the threat (to place in fear, to disrupt, etc.). However, lack of any plan or capability to act may be relevant to whether a "true threat" was actually made.
