In re S.W., 45 A.3d 151

Appellant S.W. was adjudicated delinquent for felony threats to damage property under D.C. Code § 22-1810; Gardner testified they were friends with no prior violence.
Fire next to Gardner’s house day before alleged threat caused her distress; she claimed S.W. made no explicit threat that night but later performed a modified Lil Wayne song while walking by Gardner with friends.
Gardner testified S.W. sang lines including a claim to set the block and her house on fire, but she could not recall a direct threat from the earlier exchange and described her reaction as scared.
Trial court instructed required elements: words spoken, ordinary hearer would believe property would be damaged, and intent to convey a threat; court found some words threatening and that S.W. intended to be heard.
Court credited Gardner’s testimony but found the evidence insufficient to show a reasonable listener would believe S.W. intended to damage Gardner’s property; adjudication of delinquency reversed.
Court noted absence of hostility, lack of evidence connecting S.W. to the fire, and context-sensitive analysis of “true threats” under First Amendment jurisprudence to distinguish protected speech from criminal threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports all three elements of a criminal threat	S.W. uttered words that could be read as a threat and intended them as a threat.	Context shows words were not reasonably perceived as a threat to property; no hostility or link to the fire.	Yes; insufficient evidence on the ordinary-hearer element; adjudication reversed.
Whether facially threatening statements can be rendered non-threatening by context	Context does not negate the facial threat.	Context can neutralize threat under First Amendment principles.	Context can negate a threat; not every threatening phrase constitutes a true threat.
Whether the fire incident and Gardner’s subjective fear suffice to create an objective threat	The fire and fear support an objective threat	Subjective fear alone cannot establish an objective threat without evidence of predisposition or intent	No; fear alone cannot establish objective threat absent evidence connecting S.W. to arson or intent to threaten property.

Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026 (D.C.2000) (context matters; words must be analyzed with delivery circumstances)
Jenkins v. United States, 902 A.2d 79 (D.C.2006) (ordinary hearer standard; surrounding circumstances matter)
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (U.S.1969) (true threats require constitutional consideration; context matters)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S.2003) (true threats exception to First Amendment; objective interpretation)
Baish, 460 A.2d 38 (D.C.1983) (elements of threats; standard cross-reference to misdemeanor)
Fogel v. Collins, 531 F.3d 824 (9th Cir.2008) (context of speech can negate perceived threat)