Christopher Allen Gillette v. State, 444 S.W.3d 713

Gillette was convicted by a jury of two third-degree felonies for terroristic threat arising from a letter to a U.S. congressman and from classroom remarks at a Texas college.
The letter to Congressman Burgess demanded official apology, private medical funding, and compensation, paired with threats to inform the public and to mobilize armed action if demands were not met.
In a college classroom, Gillette made a tirade including references to AK-47 and “specialized military training,” with others expressing fear and authorities responding.
The TWU campus was placed on lockdown after the incident, and Gillette was arrested on a terroristic-threat charge.
The trial court sentenced the Burgess-letter count to four years and the classroom-count to ten years (suspended and run concurrently under community supervision).
On rehearing, the court affirmed the Burgess-letter conviction but reversed and remanded the classroom-conviction due to egregious jury-charge error allowing a non-unanimous verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unanimity error in TWU classroom count	Gillette argues two intents under 22.07(a) are separate offenses requiring unanimity.	State contends subitems are alternative means to commit a single offense and allow non-unanimous verdict.	Jury-charge error; submission of two offenses in one verdict form was egregiously harms the defendant.
Sufficiency of evidence for letter conviction	Gillette claims letter threats were vague and non-imminent.	State contends wording communicated a threat to influence Congress.	Sufficient evidence to support terroristic threat under 22.07(a)(6).
Sufficiency of evidence for classroom conviction	Gillette argues no threat to violence with intent to influence Congress or fear of public.	State asserts both intended threats and fear established, including nonverbal cues and prior acts.	Sufficient evidence to convict under 22.07(a)(5) and (a)(6) based on intent and threat.
Admission of extraneous-offense evidence	Gillette challenges 404(b) and 403 admission of prior threats and a separate incident.	State contends evidence shows motive, intent, and absence of mistake; probative value outweighs prejudice.	The court upheld admissibility as within trial court discretion; no reversible error given the remand on charge issue.

Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unanimity concerns for multi-theory jury verdicts; failure to ensure unanimity can be egregious harm)
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (sufficiency review; rational juror could find essential elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Phillips v. State, 401 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (intent may be inferred from words and conduct; conditional threats addressed)
Dues v. State, 634 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (threats can satisfy terroristic-threat elements even if not immediately actionable)
Jarrell v. State, 537 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (gravamen focuses on intended effect of threat, not ability to commit)