Opinion ID: 197264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent to Threaten Egan

Text: 28 Fulmer argues that the district court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the statute requires both the statutory intent and an intent to put Mr. Egan in fear of being assaulted or murdered. He also claims that the district court erred when it declined to instruct the jury that intimidate means to say or do something that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of harm to himself or another. 29 The district court set forth the jury instruction regarding the elements of the statute 2 as follows: 30 To prove the defendant committed this crime, the Government must prove that the defendant knowingly threatened the officer. The term knowingly, as used in these instructions, means that the defendant was conscious and aware of his actions, realized what he was doing, and did not act out of ignorance, mistake, or accident. 31 Now, what is a threat for purposes of this statute? A threat is a statement that expresses an intent to inflict bodily harm on someone. To be a threat, a statement must be of such a nature as can reasonably induce fear. You must determine whether a statement was a true threat when judged in this context--in its context. 32 Among other things, you should consider whether on its face and in the circumstances in which the statement is made, a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would convey to the recipient a seriousness of purpose and the apparent prospect of execution. Whether a particular statement is a threat is governed by an objective standard whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by the person to whom it is made as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault. 33 This means that you should consider the statement in light of its entire factual context, including the surrounding events, reaction of the listeners, and the manner and tone in which it is made--was made. Sometimes the tone or the way something is expressed can make a difference between a threat and something that is not a threat. 34 Keep in mind that the Government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So if there is something ambiguous about the way the statement is made and you think that the statement can be reasonably interpreted under the circumstances, either as threatening or nonthreatening, the case has not been proven. However, the fact that a threat is subtle or lacks explicitly threatening language does not make it less of a threat. 35 Now, a threat can be made in person, in a phone call, or in a letter. To be a threat, it's not necessary that the statement be made face to face. The Government does not have to prove that the defendant actually intended to carry out the threat or that he was able to. That is not a part of the definition of threat. 36 If the Government proves that a threat was made by the defendant, then you must decide whether the person threatened was a federal law enforcement officer and whether at the time the threat was made, the officer was engaged in the performance of his official duties. 37