Ex Parte Justin River Carter
03-14-00669-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 27, 2015Background
- Justin Carter charged April 10, 2013 with Terroristic Threat under Tex. Penal Code §22.07(a)(4)-(a)(5) in Comal County; pretrial habeas corpus filed; hearing Aug. 26–27, 2014; trial court denied relief Oct. 23, 2014; appeal filed thereafter.
- Indictment alleged two theories of manner/means for terroristic threat—impairment of public services or placing public in fear of serious bodily injury.
- Alleged Facebook post consisted of a sarcastic, hyperbolic statement in response to an insult; evidence showed tip from Canada.
- Statute §22.07(a) includes subsections (a)(4) and (a)(5) with broad, vague language—“other public service” and “public”—raising First Amendment concerns.
- Carter argued the statements were protected speech and not true threats; the court addressed facial and as-applied challenges to the statute.
- Relief requested was dismissal or holding the continued prosecution unconstitutional as applied to Carter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial unconstitutionality of §22.07(a)(4)-(5) | Carter argues overbreadth/vagueness chill protected speech | State defends statute as narrowly tailored with intent elements | Facially unconstitutional for vagueness/overbreadth |
| Unconstitutionality as applied to Carter | Speech, context shows sarcasm; not a true threat | Statute applies to threats regardless of context | Unconstitutional as applied to Carter |
| Proper burden and standard of review for facial challenges | De novo review when statute affects First Amendment rights | Abuse of discretion governs habeas rulings | Facial validity reviewed de novo; court found invalidity |
| Whether 'true threats' standard governs applying §22.07 | Context shows non-threatening sarcasm; not true threat | Statute reaches threats meeting standard | Statute cannot be applied to punish sarcastic online speech |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (facial pretrial habeas corpus challenge viable; standard of review)
- Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas rulings)
- Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (facial challenges to statutes via habeas corpus)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (true threats; contextual analysis; prohibitions must target true threats)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (content-based regulation presumptively invalid; government bears burden to rebut)
- United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (content-based regulation of speech; First Amendment protections)
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (2003) (overbreadth concerns; chilling effect on protected speech)
- Long v. Texas, 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (vagueness analysis for criminal statutes)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (incitement standard; imminence and likelihood not met here)