FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWYERS

Hunterdon County Terroristic Threat Attorney

You got charged with terroristic threats last week in Hunterdon County, maybe after you sent threatening text messages to someone during a heated argument, or posted threats on social media, or threatened a family member during a domestic dispute, or threatened a coworker during a workplace conflict, or said “I’m going to kill you” during a confrontation, or left threatening voicemails, or sent threatening emails. You don’t know if you’re facing third-degree charges carrying up to five years in state prison or second-degree charges carrying up to ten years in state prison if this occurred during a declared emergency. You don’t understand the difference between subsection (a) general terroristic threats—which applies when you threaten any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize or cause public inconvenience—and subsection (b) threats to kill—which applies when you threaten to kill someone with purpose to put them in imminent fear of death. You don’t understand the “purpose to terrorize” requirement, and you don’t know if angry text messages or social media posts made in frustration count as terroristic threats. You don’t know if the threat has to be specific or whether vague statements qualify, you don’t understand the “imminent fear” requirement for death threats, you’re concerned about a permanent felony record, and you’re wondering about the presumption of non-incarceration for first-time offenders.

The answer depends on multiple factors including whether you acted with a conscious objective to terrorize another person or cause serious public inconvenience, whether the alleged threat was specific enough to constitute a “true threat” versus vague angry statements, whether the circumstances reasonably caused the alleged victim to believe the threat was imminent and would actually be carried out, and whether your statements can be interpreted as protected speech versus criminal threats. Third-degree terroristic threats under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 carries up to five years in state prison and a $15,000 fine under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6 and N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3, and second-degree terroristic threats occurring during a declared national, state, or county emergency carries up to ten years in state prison and a $150,000 fine. All terroristic threats cases are handled at the Hunterdon County Superior Court in Flemington and prosecuted by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office, requiring a grand jury indictment. There is a presumption of non-incarceration for first-time offenders charged with third-degree terroristic threats, meaning probation is likely if you have no prior criminal record.

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. Our founder Todd Spodek earned his Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Northeastern University in Boston and his Juris Doctor from the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in White Plains, New York. During and after college, Todd worked at some of the largest law firms in Boston and New York, first as a file clerk then as a paralegal preparing multi-defendant cases for trial. During law school he was recommended for Moot Court where he successfully argued criminal cases. Todd is a second-generation attorney—Spodek Law Group was originally established in 1976, making it a nearly 50-year-old family-owned criminal defense practice. With over 20 years of experience practicing criminal defense, Todd has handled thousands of tough cases throughout his career and secured numerous acquittals at trial for clients facing the most serious charges including Felony Murder, Depraved Indifference Murder, Assault, Robbery, Menacing, Harassment, and Predatory Sexual Assault. His exceptional work has garnered national media attention—he represented Anna Delvey (Anna Sorokin) in her high-profile grand larceny case that was featured in a Netflix special series released in 2022, represented the juror at the center of Ghislaine Maxwell’s bid for a mistrial, and handled the Faith Walk Ministry case involving over $1.2 million in pandemic fraud charges. Todd’s work has been featured in the New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5, Business Insider, and Bloomberg. Spodek Law Group has received over 700 client reviews reflecting our commitment to exceptional service and results. We’ve represented many, many clients charged with terroristic threats in Hunterdon County prosecuted at the Superior Court in Flemington, and we’ve achieved many, many successful outcomes including downgrades to lesser charges like harassment, dismissals based on lack of purpose to terrorize or insufficient specificity of the alleged threat, and acquittals demonstrating that the defendant’s statements were taken out of context, were protected speech, or didn’t constitute true threats. If you’re reaching out to us—we understand the stakes you’re facing.

Purpose to Terrorize and True Threat Requirements

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3, prosecutors must prove three elements: you made a threat, the threat implied you were going to commit an act of violence, and the threat was made with the intent to terrorize the party who received it. The “purpose to terrorize” element requires that you had a conscious objective to terrorize—mere angry statements, venting frustration, or hyperbolic threats made in anger without intent to terrorize do not satisfy this requirement. Subsection (a) applies when you threaten to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another, cause evacuation of a building or public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. Subsection (b) applies specifically to threats to kill another person with purpose to put them in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood it will be carried out. The threat must be specific enough to constitute a “true threat”—vague angry statements, hyperbolic expressions like “I could kill him,” conditional threats depending on future events, and statements clearly not meant to be taken seriously generally don’t qualify. Threats can be communicated through text messages, social media posts, emails, voicemails, or spoken words, and can be communicated directly to the victim or indirectly through a third party. What matters is whether the defendant had the conscious objective to terrorize and whether the alleged threat was specific enough that a reasonable person would perceive it as a serious expression of intent to commit violence.

Todd Spodek’s Strategic Approach to Terroristic Threats Defense

In terroristic threats cases, Todd Spodek employs sophisticated defense strategies honed over two decades of trial work in the most serious criminal cases. He challenges the prosecution’s evidence by questioning whether you had a true purpose to terrorize or whether statements were made in anger or frustration without any conscious objective to terrorize anyone. He examines whether the alleged threat was specific enough to constitute a true threat or whether your statements were vague angry expressions, political hyperbole, or artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. He analyzes whether the circumstances reasonably caused the alleged victim to believe the threat was imminent and would actually be carried out, or whether your statements were obviously not meant to be taken seriously. He investigates credibility issues with the alleged victim—whether they truly felt terrorized versus merely upset or annoyed, whether they took the threat seriously enough to report it immediately or only reported it later during an ongoing dispute, and whether they have a motive to exaggerate or fabricate. In Hunterdon County specifically, Todd has handled terroristic threats cases at the Superior Court in Flemington prosecuted by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office. His trial experience in murder, assault, and other serious violent felonies gives him the skills to effectively cross-examine alleged victims about whether they truly feared imminent violence or whether they’re exaggerating angry statements made during a heated argument. Todd understands that terroristic threats charges often arise from statements taken out of context, misunderstandings during high-stress confrontations, or situations where defendants vented frustration without any actual intent to carry out threats or to terrorize anyone. For cases involving domestic violence victims, Todd navigates the additional complexity of temporary restraining orders and final restraining order hearings in Family Court, understanding that terroristic threats convictions in domestic violence contexts carry enhanced consequences. Since April 2025, defendants can request expedited New Jersey State Police processing for expungements of terroristic threats convictions if filed correctly up front under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2, which reduces wait time for clearing criminal records—but the best outcome is avoiding conviction entirely through aggressive defense strategy challenging the prosecution’s evidence on purpose to terrorize, specificity of the threat, reasonableness of the alleged victim’s fear, or First Amendment protections.

Call 212-300-5196.