Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

13 

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

[the  victim’s]  mind.”  2  W.  Russell  &  D.  Davis,  Crimes  & 
Misdemeanors *1845 (emphasis added).

Consistent  with  this,  defendants  were  convicted  of 
“knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously” sending threatening 
letters.  Rex  v.  Tyler,  1  Mood.  428,  168  Eng.  Rep.  1330
(1835); Rex v. Paddle, Russ. & Ry. 484, 168 Eng. Rep. 910
(1822)  (indictment  for  “knowingly,  unlawfully,  wickedly,
and feloniously” sending a threatening letter); see also King 
v. Girdwood, 1 Leach 142, 168 Eng. Rep. 173 (1776) (indict-
ment  for  “feloniously”  sending  a  threatening  letter).
“ ‘[K]nowingly  and  wilfully’  effecting  any  result  applies  to 
those who know that the acts performed will have that ef-
fect, and perform them with the intention that such shall 
be their operation.”  12 American and English Encyclopae-
dia of Law 522–524 (J. Merrill ed. 1890); see also J. Boag, 
Imperial Lexicon of the English Language 530 (1850) (de-
fining “felonious” as “with the deliberate purpose to commit
a crime”).
  The necessary mens rea could sometimes be inferred from 
the content of the letter, but could be rebutted by other ev-
idence.  See King v. Philipps, 6 East 464, 475, 102 Eng. Rep. 
1365, 1369 (1805).  Courts thus considered “the threat in-
tended to be made by the prisoner” and “what he meant by
what he had written” in determining whether he had vio-
lated the statute.  Regina v. Hill, 5 Cox 233, 235 (Crim. Cas. 
1851); see also King v. John and Mary Hammond, 1 Leach 
444, 446, 168 Eng. Rep. 324, 325 (1787) (describing the of-
fense  of  sending  a  threatening  letter  “to  the  party  whose
fears the threat it contains was calculated to alarm”).

Threat laws in the United States were of a piece.  Some 
state laws about threats expressly required maliciousness.
See  Me.  Rev.  Stat.,  Tit.  12,  ch.  154,  §26  (1840);  1884  La. 
Acts No. 64, §1, p. 86.  Courts more generally emphasized 
the importance of a mens rea requirement.  See, e.g., State 
v. Benedict, 11 Vt. 236, 239 (1839).  The North Carolina Su-