Printable Format21-5415. Criminal threat; aggravated criminal threat. (a) A criminal threat is any threat to:
(1) Commit violence communicated with intent to place another in fear, or to cause the evacuation, lock down or disruption in regular, ongoing activities of any building, place of assembly or facility of transportation, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such fear or evacuation, lock down or disruption in regular, ongoing activities;
(2) adulterate or contaminate any food, raw agricultural commodity, beverage, drug, animal feed, plant or public water supply; or
(3) expose any animal in this state to any contagious or infectious disease.
(b) Aggravated criminal threat is the commission of a criminal threat, as defined in subsection (a), when a public, commercial or industrial building, place of assembly or facility of transportation is evacuated, locked down or disrupted as to regular, ongoing activities as a result of the threat.
(c) (1) A criminal threat is a severity level 9, person felony.
(2) Aggravated criminal threat is a severity level 5, person felony.
(d) As used in this section, "threat" includes any statement that one has committed any action described by subsection (a).
History: L. 2010, ch. 136, ยง 50; July 1, 2011.
Source or Prior Law:
21-3419, 21-3419a.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statute is not unconstitutionally vague by using the word "fear." State v. White, 53 Kan. App. 2d 44, 60, 384 P.3d 13 (2016).
2. Defendant's two convictions for criminal threat were not multiplicitous under the unit of prosecution test. State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321, 338-42, 446 P.3d 472 (2019).
3. The portion of K.S.A. 21-5415(a)(1) allowing for a conviction if a threat of violence is made in reckless disregard for causing fear is unconstitutionally overbroad. State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800, 822-23, 450 P.3d 805 (2019).
4. Appellate decision declaring a portion of statute unconstitutional applies to case pending on direct review. State v. Lindemuth, 312 Kan. 12, 470 P.3d 1279 (2020).
5. Mental state of recklessness is sufficient to establish a true threat not protected under the 1st Amendment; Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023) effectively overruled State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800, 450 P.3d 805 (2019). State v. Phipps, 63 Kan. App. 2d 698, 707, 539 P.3d 227 (2023), rev. granted (Jan. 29, 2024).