The State asserts it need not prove Mr. Avila intended to carry out the threat or intended to communicate the threat directly or indirectly to Mr. Kimes, merely that the threat was made. To support its argument, the State relies on State v. Edwards, 84 Wn. App. 5, 924 P.2d 397 (1996); State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 810 P.2d 19 (1991); and State v. Hansen, 122 Wn.2d 712, 862 P.2d 117 (1993). Edwards discussed RCW 9.61.160, a statute making it unlawful "for any person to threaten to bomb" buildings or other places where people assemble.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 63 L.Ed. 470, 39 S.Ct. 247 (1919). But see State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 122, 810 P.2d 19 (1991) wherein the court broadly stated that "[c]ommunications which qualify as threats are outside the realm of protected speech", (citing State v. Brown, 50 Wn. App. 405, 411, 748 P.2d 276 (1988)). Kepiro addressed a challenge to a state statute prohibiting the intimidation of a judge; and a "threat" as defined by the relevant portion of RCW 9A.72.160 was defined as communicating the intent to "cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened . . ."
RCW 9A.76.180(3)(a) describes "true" threats that are outside the scope of protected speech. State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 125, 810 P.2d 19 (1991). RCW 9A.76.180(3)(a) describes "true" threats that are outside the scope of protected speech.
[6] Nor does the first part of RCW 9.61.160 require actual intent to injure. In State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 810 P.2d 19 (1991), the court analyzed an analogous statute, RCW 9A.72.160, which criminalizes intimidation of judges. Kepiro argued that the statute contained an implied element of intent to harm or reasonably cause alarm.
The only intent requirement is that the offender intentionally or knowingly made a communication that a reasonable person would construe as a threat. ( Orozco-Santillan, supra, 903 F.2d at p. 1265, fn. 3; State v. Kepiro (1991) 61 Wn. App. 116, 124-126 [ 810 P.2d 19, 24].) The court held that the statement in that case β "`If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.'" β was political hyperbole rather than a true threat, given its context and expressly conditional nature.
We note at the outset that the State's position is untenable. First, the State incorrectly claims support for its position in our recent decision in State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 810 P.2d 19 (1991). In Kepiro, the only other published opinion interpreting RCW 9A.72.160, we held that the State need not prove that the defendant actually intended to cause the threatened harm.
State v. Locke, 175 Wn.App. 779, 789, 307 P.3d 771 (2013) (quoting State v. Allen, 176 Wn.2d 611, 626, 294 P.3d 679 (2013)). See also State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn.App. 116, 125, 810 P.2d 19 (1991) ("[I]t is implicit in the definition of 'threat' in RCW 9A.04.110(25)(a) that only true or serious threats are covered."). State v. Kohonen, 192 Wn.App. 567, 575, 370 P.3d 16 (2016) (citing State v. Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d 36, 54, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004)).
ΒΆ16 In some contexts, however, any "`apparently serious threat may cause the mischief or evil toward which the statute was in part directed.'" State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 123, 810 P.2d 19 (1991) (quoting Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1969)). Laws prohibiting threats of violence focus on fear and "`the disruption that fear engenders,'" as well as the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
The defendant need not actually intend to carry out the threat. State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 121, 810 P.2d 19 (1991). Mr. Batson contends that the State failed to prove any specific ruling by Judge Culp, past or future, that Mr. Batson was supposedly trying to influence by his threats to blow up the courthouse, the judge, and the witnesses.
Id. Nor need the defendant actually intend to cause the bodily harm. State v. Kepiro, 61 Wn. App. 116, 121, 810 P.2d 19 (1991). "All that is required is that the defendant direct a threat to a judge in which he [or she] communicates the intent to do so."