Opinion ID: 2189569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Sufficient Evidence Exists to Support Defendant's Convictions for Threatening a Public Official

Text: The defendant also contests his convictions for threatening a public official (P2/00-1052 counts 8 and 9). Section § 11-42-4 provides in pertinent part: Whoever knowingly and willfully delivers or conveys, directly or indirectly, a verbal or written threat to take the life of, or to inflict bodily harm upon, a public official or a member of his or her immediate family because of the performance or nonperformance of some public duty    shall be guilty of a felony   (Emphasis added.) Both the state and defendant agree that the evidence for counts 8 and 9 of P2/00-1052 consisted of defendant's statements to a sheriff that he had a bullet for [General Magistrate] O'Brien and a bullet for Judge DeRobbio. [13] The defendant argues that, because he spoke his threats concerning General Magistrate O'Brien and Chief Judge DeRobbio to Family Court Sheriff Viera, he did not convey or deliver a threat to either public official. This Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426, 431 (R.I.2003). When interpreting a statute, our ultimate goal is to give effect to the General Assembly's intent.    The best evidence of such intent can be found in the plain language used in the statute. Thus, a clear and unambiguous statute will be literally construed. Id. The plain language of § 11-42-4 clearly and unambiguously states that threatening remarks may be delivered indirectly. Thus, § 11-42-4 does not require that a threat be spoken directly to its target. Therefore, the threats to General Magistrate O'Brien and Chief Judge DeRobbio that defendant voiced to Sheriff Viera constitute a violation of § 11-42-4. The defendant additionally reasserts his argument that his threats were not genuine relating to his conviction for threatening a public official pursuant to counts 8 and 9 of P2/00-1052. Like extortion and blackmail, a conviction for threatening a public official requires proof of a true threat. As expressed above, defendant's threats were genuine; thus we uphold his convictions on counts 8 and 9.