Can I be charged with terroristic threats without ever touching anyone?

Yes. Section 2706 is complete once a threat to commit a crime of violence is communicated with the intent to terrorize, and no physical contact or even physical proximity is required. That's the fundamental difference from simple assault.

Does saying something angry during an argument automatically count as a terroristic threat?

Not necessarily. Courts have recognized that spontaneous statements made in the heat of an argument, without the specific intent to terrorize, don't automatically satisfy the statute, though the specific words used and the context matter a great deal.

Can assault and terroristic threats be charged from the same single incident?

Yes, if the incident involved both a threat and actual or attempted physical contact, prosecutors sometimes charge both statutes from the same event, though whether both charges actually hold up depends on the specific facts of each element.

Do text messages or social media posts count as terroristic threats?

They can, if the content constitutes a threat to commit a crime of violence made with intent to terrorize the recipient. Written threats are often easier for the Commonwealth to prove than spoken ones because the exact wording is preserved.

Can a threats charge be graded higher than the assault charged with it?

Yes. A simple assault is usually an M2, while terroristic threats is an M1 — and § 2706 grades the threat as an F3 felony where it causes the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or public transportation facility. The charge with no physical contact can end up carrying the greater exposure of the two.

Compare · Assault vs. Terroristic Threats

Assault requires physical contact or an attempt at it; terroristic threats requires only words.

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701 and § 2706 punish very different conduct even though they're both filed constantly out of the same domestic, neighbor, or workplace disputes. Simple assault requires an actual attempt or completed act of causing bodily injury; terroristic threats requires only a communicated threat to commit a crime of violence, made with the intent to terrorize, and no physical contact whatsoever needs to occur. Because threats charges are built entirely on what was said or written and the surrounding context, they raise different evidentiary issues than a contact-based assault charge, and the two are sometimes charged together even when only one is well supported by the facts.

(717) 724-7503 Schedule a consultation

The short answer

Simple assault § 2701

Simple assault requires the Commonwealth to prove an attempt to cause, or an actual causing of, bodily injury to another, or negligently causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon. It is graded M2 generally, M3 for an injury arising from a mutual fight, and M1 where the victim is under 12 and the actor is 18 or older, with maximum sentences of 2, 1, and 5 years respectively under § 1104. Because it requires physical contact, an attempt at contact, or a genuine imminent threat of contact under the related assault-by-physical-menace theory, an assault case typically turns on witness accounts of the physical altercation itself, medical records if there was injury, and sometimes video evidence of the actual contact.

Terroristic threats § 2706

Terroristic threats is graded M1 in the ordinary case, rising to F3 where the threat causes evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or public transportation facility, or causes serious public inconvenience. The statute requires a communicated threat to commit a crime of violence made with intent to terrorize another, and importantly does not require any intent to actually carry out the threat — the crime is complete once the threat is made with the required intent. Because § 2706 is built on communication rather than contact, these cases turn heavily on the exact words used, the context in which they were said, whether they were a spontaneous outburst made in anger rather than a genuine threat, and whether the recipient's reported fear was reasonable under the circumstances. Courts have recognized that a threat made in the heat of an argument, without more, does not automatically satisfy the specific intent to terrorize that the statute requires, which makes intent a frequent point of dispute in these cases.

Simple assault § 2701 vs. Terroristic threats § 2706 — Pennsylvania comparison
What matters	Simple assault § 2701	Terroristic threats § 2706
Governing statute	18 Pa.C.S. § 2701	18 Pa.C.S. § 2706
Core conduct required	Physical contact or attempted contact causing bodily injury	A communicated threat to commit a crime of violence
Physical contact required	Yes, or an attempt at it	No — words or writing alone can satisfy the statute
Typical grading	M2 generally, M3 mutual fight, M1 young victim	M1 generally, F3 if it causes an evacuation or public transit disruption
Maximum sentence	Up to 5 years (M1), 2 years (M2), or 1 year (M3)	Up to 5 years (M1) or 7 years (F3) under §§ 1103–1104
Intent element	Intent or negligence causing injury, depending on grading	Specific intent to terrorize; heat-of-the-moment outbursts are frequently contested
Evidence typically at issue	Witness accounts, medical records, video of the contact	Exact wording used, context, recipient's reaction, any recordings or texts
Common overlapping charge	Often charged alongside REAP or harassment	Often charged alongside harassment or stalking under § 2709.1

Scroll the table horizontally to compare every column. Statutory maximums are ceilings, not expected outcomes[1]. Nothing on this page is a prediction about a specific case.

Which one fits your case.

When an assault charge is the accurate one

If there was actual physical contact or a genuine physical attempt to strike, push, or otherwise make contact, the assault statute is the right fit and the defense focus should be on the degree of injury and any justification defense.

When a threats charge is genuinely weak

Statements made in obvious anger during a heated argument, without a specific threat to commit a defined crime of violence and without evidence the speaker intended to instill genuine fear, often fall short of what § 2706 actually requires.

What we look at first

I look at the exact words alleged, whether they were recorded or only recalled from memory, the relationship and history between the parties, and whether the Commonwealth can show the required specific intent to terrorize rather than mere anger.

What you should not do

Don't assume a threats charge is unbeatable just because words were undeniably said — intent and context matter enormously — and don't contact the alleged victim to 'clear things up' while a threats or assault case is pending.

Frequently asked questions.

Common questions about assault vs. terroristic threats in Pennsylvania.

Yes. Section 2706 is complete once a threat to commit a crime of violence is communicated with the intent to terrorize, and no physical contact or even physical proximity is required. That's the fundamental difference from simple assault.
Not necessarily. Courts have recognized that spontaneous statements made in the heat of an argument, without the specific intent to terrorize, don't automatically satisfy the statute, though the specific words used and the context matter a great deal.
Yes, if the incident involved both a threat and actual or attempted physical contact, prosecutors sometimes charge both statutes from the same event, though whether both charges actually hold up depends on the specific facts of each element.
They can, if the content constitutes a threat to commit a crime of violence made with intent to terrorize the recipient. Written threats are often easier for the Commonwealth to prove than spoken ones because the exact wording is preserved.
Yes. A simple assault is usually an M2, while terroristic threats is an M1 — and § 2706 grades the threat as an F3 felony where it causes the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or public transportation facility. The charge with no physical contact can end up carrying the greater exposure of the two.

[1]18 Pa.C.S. § 2701 — Simple assault — M2 generally; M3 for a mutual fight; M1 where the victim is under 12 and the actor is 18 or older.
[2]18 Pa.C.S. § 2706 — Terroristic threats — M1 generally; F3 where the threat causes the diversion or evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation.
[3]18 Pa.C.S. § 1103 — Sentences for felonies — F1 up to 20 years, F2 up to 10, F3 up to 7.
[4]18 Pa.C.S. § 1104 — Sentences for misdemeanors — M1 up to 5, M2 up to 2, M3 up to 1.
[5]18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1 — Stalking — M1 first offense; F3 for a second or subsequent offense or with a prior crime of violence against the same victim.

Statutes are summarized for public reference. Confirm current text at palegis.us. This page is attorney advertising, not legal advice.

Free Consultation

The sooner we talk, the more we can do.

Every hour matters in a DUI or criminal case. Call directly and speak with Attorney Quinlan — not an intake desk.