Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

14 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

preme Court, for example, singled out threats as quintes-
sential examples of offenses where it is “necessary” to prove 
the  “intent  of  the  particular  letter.”  State  v.  Murphy,  84 
N. C. 742, 743–744 (1881).  And where state statutes may 
have been silent on intent to threaten, courts read such re-
quirements in.  See Commonwealth v. Morton, 140 Ky. 628, 
631, 131 S. W. 506, 507–508 (1910) (letter must be “calcu-
lated  to  alarm,  disturb,  intimidate,  or  injure”);  see  also 
State v. Stewart, 90 Mo. 507, 512, 2 S. W. 790, 792 (1887) 
(jury  instruction  requiring  that  “ ‘defendant  intended  to 
threaten’ ”).

Leading treatises also explained the importance of mens 
rea.  See  25  American  and  English  Encyclopaedia  of  Law 
1071 (C. Williams ed. 1894) (when there is a question as to
“whether or not the letter contains the threat alleged, the 
intent is a question for the jury”); see also 2 R. Anderson,
Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure §803, pp. 659–660 
(1957) (threats must be “intended to put the person threat-
ened in fear of bodily harm”); 2 J. Bishop, Commentaries on
the Criminal Law §1201, p. 664 (6th ed. 1877) (“The intent, 
both under the unwritten law and under the statutes, must 
be evil”).

Against  that  backdrop,  I  return  to  the  inquiry  at  hand:
whether there is a “long-settled” or “well-established” his-
tory  of  prosecuting  inadvertently  threatening  speech.
There is no line of cases or pattern of statutes affirmatively 
stating that an objective standard is sufficient. 

C 
  Put together, Black and the history point to an intent re-
quirement.  When Black defined and analyzed true threats 
in terms of intent, there is no reason to think the Court used 
intent to mean anything less than its traditional definition 
of purpose or knowledge.  See, e.g., Tison, 481 U. S., at 150. 
Nor would a recklessness standard play the necessary role 
of distinguishing between cross burning that is “ ‘intended