United States v. Alkhabaz

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997 · Criminal Law

Criminal Law18 U.S.C. § 875(c)threatsinterstate communicationsforeign commercegeneral intentactus reusobjective test

Facts

Between November 1994 and January 1995, Baker in Michigan and Gonda in Ontario exchanged private e-mail messages over the Internet expressing a sexual interest in violence against women and girls. Baker had also posted fictional stories on a public Usenet group, including one involving a classmate's name, but the superseding indictment was based on private e-mails not publicly accessible on the Internet. A federal grand jury returned a five-count superseding indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The communications, as characterized by the court, were sent between Baker and Gonda to foster a friendship based on shared sexual fantasies.

Issue

Did the superseding indictment allege violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) where the charged e-mail communications, even if they could be read as serious expressions of intent to inflict bodily harm, were not objectively conveyed to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation? More specifically, what qualifies as a "communication containing a threat" under Section 875(c)?

Rule

To constitute a "communication containing a threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), a communication must be such that a reasonable person would (1) take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm, and (2) perceive that expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation. Both aspects are judged objectively from the perspective of the receiver.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz emails her former landlord in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: "If you do not send back my $1,800 deposit by Monday, I will break your jaw." The message is sent directly to the landlord after weeks of dispute over the deposit.

Under the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), is this email most likely a prohibited communication containing a threat?

Explanation. The majority held that a communication contains a threat under § 875(c) only if a reasonable person would (1) take it as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm and (2) perceive it as communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation. Here, the email is directed to the landlord and seeks the return of money by intimidation, satisfying both objective components.