Justices to Mull Whether Terroristic Threats Statute Violates Free-Speech Rights
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review a Superior Court ruling that upheld an order of probation for a student found to have made terroristic threats, including stating a desire to "beat the record" for the number of deaths in a school shooting.
April 02, 2020 at 02:34 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review a Superior Court ruling that upheld an order of probation for a student found to have made terroristic threats, including stating a desire to "beat the record" for the number of deaths in a school shooting.
In a one-page order issued April 1 in In the Interest of J.J.M., a Minor, the justices agreed to consider a single question: "Whether the Superior Court misapprehended controlling facts, in a case of first impression in this commonwealth, when concluding that the terroristic threats statute, requiring only a conviction based upon recklessness, did not violate [petitioner's] First Amendment right under the United States Constitution to free speech?"
Last fall, a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Alice Dubow and John Musmanno affirmed that then 15-year-old vocational school student J.J.M. was delinquent of terroristic threats, based on testimony from students and a member of school administration.
According to Bowes' Sept. 10 published opinion, fellow students expressed concerns to school administrators after overhearing J.J.M. talking about death and a desire to "beat the record of 19," which they construed as referring to the number of deaths in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which had occurred less than a week earlier. He was later expelled from the school.
After a juvenile court placed J.J.M. on probation and ordered him to undergo mental health treatment, he appealed to the Superior Court. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the order and that the statute against terroristic threats violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and Fifth and 14th amendment due process rights. J.J.M. argued that the statements he made, taken alone, have no meaning.
However, Bowes said that J.J.M.'s words were clearly threatening.
"We conclude that the evidence sufficiently established that appellant made his threat with reckless disregard for the risk that it would cause terror," Bowes said. "Again, the facts are that, while the news was dominated by the deadliest high school shooting in this country's history, appellant proclaimed in a high school hallway, between classes, loud enough for other students to hear, that he wanted to 'beat the record of 19.' We do not hesitate to conclude that appellant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his threat would terrorize his fellow students."
The panel added in a footnote that while the death toll of the Parkland shooting was actually 17, the student who reported hearing the comment also said she was not certain of the number J.J.M. stated.
Additionally, the statute against making terroristic threats did not impede J.J.M.'s free speech rights, Bowes said.
"A threat made with the mental state of recklessness, i.e., with conscious disregard of the risk of causing terror, constitutes a true threat falling outside the scope of the protections of the First Amendment," Bowes said.
The evidence did not suggest that he was joking or didn't mean what he said, Bowes noted.
"Rather, appellant, who had cultivated an image among his classmates as one who relished the thought of death to human beings, must have known the effect that his words would have upon his fellow students in the wake of the Parkland shooting," Bowes said. "Yet he chose to utter them anyway, in school, in the hallway between classes, for anyone and everyone around him to hear."
J.J.M.'s other constitutional challenges failed as well.
J.J.M. is represented by Robert Buttner of the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office. Gerry Scott IV of the county District Attorney's Office is prosecuting the case.
Neither could be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
3 minute readPeople in the News—Jan. 23, 2025—Marshall Dennehey, Duane Morris, Hangley Aronchick
3 minute readPlaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250