Is terroristic threats a felony in Pennsylvania?

Not always. The baseline grading under § 2706 is a first-degree misdemeanor carrying up to 5 years. It becomes a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years only where the threat actually causes the evacuation of a building or place of assembly, or serious public inconvenience.

Can I be charged with terroristic threats for a text message?

Yes. Pennsylvania courts treat threats communicated by text, social media, or phone call the same as spoken threats. The full conversation and its context matter enormously, since a single message read in isolation can look far more alarming than the exchange as a whole.

Does the person I threatened have to believe I meant it?

No — the statute focuses on the speaker's intent to terrorize or communicate the threat, not on whether the listener actually felt afraid. That said, the recipient's reaction and any resulting report to police are often central evidence in how the case gets charged and prosecuted.

Can a terroristic threats charge affect my ability to own a gun?

It can, particularly in cases connected to a domestic relationship or a resulting protective order. A conviction, an active Protection From Abuse order, or certain plea outcomes can trigger a firearms disability under § 6105 independent of any jail sentence.

What's the difference between terroristic threats and harassment in PA?

Harassment under § 2709 covers unwanted contact or repeated communication meant to annoy or alarm, and is typically a summary or third-degree misdemeanor offense. Terroristic threats under § 2706 requires an actual threat to commit a crime of violence made with intent to terrorize, and carries far higher exposure as a misdemeanor of the first degree or a felony of the third degree.

Assault & Violent Crimes · Terroristic Threats

Terroristic threats turns words into a criminal case — intent is the battleground.

A terroristic threats charge in Pennsylvania rarely involves an actual plan to hurt anyone. It's usually a statement made in anger — during a breakup, a family argument, a road-rage moment, or a heated text exchange — that someone else reported to police. The statute doesn't require the threat be carried out, or even that the speaker intended to carry it out; it only requires intent to terrorize, communicate, or place someone in fear. That low bar is exactly why these cases are so often overcharged, and why the recorded words themselves usually decide the outcome.

(717) 724-7503 Schedule a consultation

How Pennsylvania grades it

Terroristic Threats Defense in Pennsylvania.

Terroristic threats under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706 makes it a crime to threaten to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building or facility, or to cause serious public inconvenience. The base grading is a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine under § 1104. The offense is elevated to a third-degree felony, carrying up to 7 years under § 1103, where the threat actually causes the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or causes serious public inconvenience. Because the statute criminalizes the communication itself rather than any physical act, the Commonwealth's proof usually consists of a recorded statement, a text message, a 911 call, or a witness's account of what was said — evidence that is often incomplete, out of context, or contradicted by other messages in the same exchange. A single incident is frequently charged alongside harassment under § 2709 or simple assault under § 2701 when the argument also involved physical contact, and prosecutors will often use the terroristic threats count as leverage in plea negotiations even where the underlying statement was clearly hyperbole made in the heat of an argument rather than a genuine threat.

Statute: 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706[1][2]

Defenses & record relief

Terroristic threats cases without a real capability or follow-through are among the most reduction-friendly assault-adjacent charges in Central Pennsylvania — ARD, a summary-offense plea, or a withdrawal are realistic goals for a first offense with a cooperative or ambiguous complainant, and a resulting non-conviction disposition supports later expungement under § 9122 or record sealing under § 9122.1.

self-defense vs. assault charges · ARD program lawyer · preliminary hearing lawyer

Terroristic Threats Defense: offense grading and maximum exposure under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706
Offense & grading	Maximum exposure
Terroristic threats — M1 § 2706(a) Base grading; applies to most threats made without an actual evacuation or public disruption.	Up to 5 years, $10,000 fine
Terroristic threats — F3 § 2706(a)(2)/(a)(3) Elevated grading where the threat causes evacuation of a building or place of assembly, or serious public inconvenience.	Up to 7 years, $15,000 fine
Terroristic threats + simple assault — M1 + M2 Common stacking pattern where the same argument involved both a verbal threat and physical contact.	Up to 7 years combined exposure
Terroristic threats + harassment — M1 + summary/M3 Occurs where repeated communications accompany a single threatening statement.	Up to 6 years combined exposure
Firearms disability on conviction — § 6105 Certain terroristic-threats convictions, particularly domestic-related ones, can trigger a firearms bar independent of the criminal sentence.	Loss of firearm rights

Maximums are statutory ceilings, not expected sentences. Actual outcomes depend on prior record score, offense gravity score, the deadly-weapon enhancement, and county practice.

Jurisdiction & court process

Where a terroristic threats case is heard.

Preliminary arraignment and hearing at the magisterial district court

A terroristic threats charge typically begins with an arrest or citation followed by a preliminary arraignment before a magisterial district judge, who sets bail conditions — often including a no-contact order where the complainant is a family member, partner, or coworker. At the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must establish a prima facie case that a threat was made and that it was made with the requisite intent, which is where a weak or ambiguous statement frequently fails to survive to the county level.

Court of Common Pleas — Dauphin, Cumberland, York, and Adams counties

Cases held for court proceed to formal arraignment and pretrial conferences in the county Court of Common Pleas. Each of these counties treats terroristic threats as a common companion charge to domestic disputes and neighbor or workplace conflicts, and each has its own informal practice for how quickly a case with a reluctant complainant or an ambiguous recording gets reduced or withdrawn.

County practice and how the DA's office screens the file

Prosecutors in Dauphin, Cumberland, and York counties routinely review the exact language of the alleged threat, the surrounding context of the conversation, any recordings or text threads, and whether the complainant is cooperative. Statements made during an obviously escalated argument, with no history of violence and no follow-through, are frequently the strongest candidates for a reduction to harassment or disorderly conduct, or for a diversionary disposition.

Collateral consequences beyond the sentence

A terroristic threats conviction — particularly one arising from a domestic or family dispute — can support a Protection From Abuse order and, in combination with certain findings, contribute to a firearms disability under § 6105. It can also affect employment in fields requiring a clean record, professional licensing, and immigration status, which is why negotiating toward an expungeable or non-violent disposition matters even in cases where a conviction of some kind seems likely.

How we defend terroristic threats cases.

Attack the intent element directly
The statute requires intent to terrorize, not merely angry or careless words. Statements made in the heat of an argument, without any capability or plan to act on them, often fail to establish the specific intent § 2706 requires.
Put the statement in full context
Prosecutors frequently present an isolated sentence from a longer conversation. The full text thread, call recording, or witness account often shows sarcasm, hyperbole, or a statement directed at no one in particular — undercutting the charge.
Challenge whether a 'true threat' exists
Constitutional protections limit § 2706 to genuine threats, not political hyperbole, jokes, or artistic expression. Ambiguous or conditional statements are a recurring point of litigation.
Contest the evacuation/felony enhancement
The F3 grading requires that the threat actually caused an evacuation or serious public inconvenience — not just that it theoretically could have. Where no evacuation occurred, the charge should be graded down to the M1 baseline.
Scrutinize who reported the threat and why
Many terroristic threats charges arise from a single reporting witness in an already contentious relationship. Motive to exaggerate or misreport is a legitimate area of cross-examination and negotiation.
Pursue diversion or a negotiated reduction
First-time cases without a genuine safety threat are strong candidates for ARD, a reduction to harassment or disorderly conduct, or a negotiated withdrawal once the full context of the statement is presented to the DA's office.

Where we appear

Violent-crime defense across Central Pennsylvania.

Attorney Quinlan appears in the magisterial district courts and Courts of Common Pleas in Dauphin, Cumberland, York, Adams, Perry, Franklin, and Lancaster counties. Start with your city:

Other violent-crime charges we defend.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions.

Common questions about terroristic threats charges in Pennsylvania — grading, penalties, defenses, and record consequences.

Not always. The baseline grading under § 2706 is a first-degree misdemeanor carrying up to 5 years. It becomes a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years only where the threat actually causes the evacuation of a building or place of assembly, or serious public inconvenience.
Yes. Pennsylvania courts treat threats communicated by text, social media, or phone call the same as spoken threats. The full conversation and its context matter enormously, since a single message read in isolation can look far more alarming than the exchange as a whole.
No — the statute focuses on the speaker's intent to terrorize or communicate the threat, not on whether the listener actually felt afraid. That said, the recipient's reaction and any resulting report to police are often central evidence in how the case gets charged and prosecuted.
It can, particularly in cases connected to a domestic relationship or a resulting protective order. A conviction, an active Protection From Abuse order, or certain plea outcomes can trigger a firearms disability under § 6105 independent of any jail sentence.
Harassment under § 2709 covers unwanted contact or repeated communication meant to annoy or alarm, and is typically a summary or third-degree misdemeanor offense. Terroristic threats under § 2706 requires an actual threat to commit a crime of violence made with intent to terrorize, and carries far higher exposure as a misdemeanor of the first degree or a felony of the third degree.

[1]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.
[2]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.
[3]18 Pa.C.S. § 2709 — Harassment — summary offense generally; graded higher for repeated or lewd communications.
[4]18 Pa.C.S. § 1103 — Sentences for felonies — F1 up to 20 years, F2 up to 10, F3 up to 7.
[5]18 Pa.C.S. § 1104 — Sentences for misdemeanors — M1 up to 5, M2 up to 2, M3 up to 1.
[6]18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 — Persons not to possess firearms — enumerated convictions, including certain assault offenses and active protective orders, bar firearm possession.
[7]18 Pa.C.S. § 9122 — Expungement of criminal history record information.
[8]18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.1 — Limited access (sealing) of criminal records; Clean Slate framework.

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.