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
© 2024 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 AllSpecial Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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