Written Threats to Kill or Do Bodily Harm — Florida § 836.10

Under Florida Statute § 836.10, sending a written threat to kill or do bodily harm to another person is a second-degree felony carrying up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The statute covers any written communication — including text messages, social media posts, emails, direct messages, and handwritten notes. The threat must be directed at a specific person and made with intent to place them in fear. These charges frequently arise from domestic disputes and social media arguments — and the First Amendment, the nature of the communication, and the specific wording of the alleged threat are all viable defense grounds.

Legally reviewed by Tonmiel Rodriguez, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer — last reviewed June 2026.

What Is a Written Threat Under Florida Statute § 836.10?

Florida § 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send any written threat to kill or do bodily injury to another person, or to send a written threat to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism against a specific person or group. The statute applies to “any written or electronic record” — explicitly covering text messages, emails, social media posts (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter/X, TikTok, direct messages), and traditional handwritten communications. There are two distinct elements: (1) the communication must constitute a threat to kill or do bodily harm, and (2) it must be sent to or about a specific identifiable person or group.

What Are the Penalties for Written Threats in Florida?

Offense	Statute	Degree	Max Prison	Max Fine
Written threat to kill or do bodily harm	§ 836.10	2nd Degree Felony	15 years	$10,000
Written threat — mass shooting or terrorism	§ 836.10	2nd Degree Felony	15 years	$10,000
Cyberstalking (electronic harassment)	§ 784.048(2)	1st Degree Misdemeanor	1 year	$1,000
Stalking with credible threat	§ 784.048(3)	3rd Degree Felony	5 years	$5,000

A conviction for written threats under § 836.10 scores as a second-degree felony on Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code. Depending on prior record, it can result in a guidelines sentence of 2-5 years in prison. Probation is possible for first-time offenders — but it typically includes no-contact orders, mandatory mental health treatment, and device and internet monitoring conditions.

Do Text Messages and Social Media Posts Count as Written Threats in Florida?

Yes — Florida § 836.10 was specifically amended to cover electronic communications after the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The statute now explicitly includes “any written or electronic record including, but not limited to, any letter, note, email, text message, post, comment, or social media content.” A text message saying “I’m going to kill you” sent in the middle of an argument qualifies as a written threat. A social media post threatening a specific person qualifies. A voicemail does not — § 836.10 covers written and electronic records, not spoken words (though spoken threats may be charged under § 784.011 or § 784.021).

Does the First Amendment Protect Threatening Messages in Florida?

The First Amendment does not protect “true threats” — communications that convey a serious intent to commit violence against a specific, identifiable person or group. The question of whether a communication constitutes a “true threat” or protected speech is one of the most contested issues in written threat prosecutions. In Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court held that a statement can only be criminally punished as a threat if it was intended to intimidate. In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Court held that the First Amendment requires proof that the defendant was subjectively aware that the statement could be perceived as threatening — establishing a mental state requirement. Florida courts must apply these standards in § 836.10 prosecutions.

This constitutional framework creates real defense arguments in written threat cases. Venting anger in a private message, using hyperbolic language common in the context, making a conditional or contextual statement, or communicating in a context where no reasonable person would perceive a genuine threat — all of these circumstances are relevant to whether the First Amendment protects the speech at issue.

What Is the Difference Between a True Threat and a Conditional or Hyperbolic Statement?

Florida courts distinguish between true threats — which can be criminally prosecuted — and conditional statements, hyperbole, or expressions of anger that do not convey a genuine intent to commit violence. “I’m going to kill you if you don’t stop calling me” is a conditional statement where the condition substantially undermines the perceived threat. “You’re dead to me” is hyperbole, and “I could kill you sometimes,” said in the middle of an argument, is an everyday idiom rather than a threat. The difference between a prosecutable written threat and protected speech often turns on: the context of the communication, the relationship between the parties, the platform used, the history of the interaction, and whether a reasonable recipient would genuinely fear for their physical safety.

What Are the Best Defenses to Written Threat Charges in Florida?

Was the Communication a True Threat or Protected Expression?

Under the First Amendment framework established in Counterman v. Colorado, the prosecution must prove the defendant was subjectively aware that the statement could be perceived as threatening. A person who sent an angry message in the heat of an argument, with no intent to follow through and no history of violence, has a meaningful argument that the communication does not meet the constitutional threshold for a true threat. The same words carry different weight depending on context: “I’ll kill you” between two friends trading insults reads differently than the same phrase sent to a stranger after a real-world confrontation.

Was the Alleged Threat Directed at a Specific Person?

Florida § 836.10 requires that the threat be directed at a specific person or group. A general statement — “somebody needs to do something about this,” or venting anger about a situation without naming or clearly identifying a target — may not satisfy the statutory requirement of a threat directed at a specific identifiable person. In cases where the alleged threat was posted publicly without being directed at a specific individual, the specificity element is contestable.

Can the Context of the Relationship Affect Whether a Communication Is a Threat?

Yes. The context of the relationship between the sender and recipient is directly relevant to whether a communication conveys a genuine threat. Two former partners who regularly communicate in aggressive or hyperbolic language may use statements that — taken out of context — appear threatening but — in context — are part of a pattern of communication neither party treated as a genuine threat. Prior messages, the history of the relationship, and the recipient’s own communications can all be used to establish context that undermines the State’s threat narrative.

Was the Communication Sent Without Criminal Intent?

Under Florida law and the First Amendment, the prosecution must prove the statement was made with the intent to place the recipient in fear. Statements made in anger, frustration, or distress — without any intention to cause fear or commit violence — are stronger candidates for First Amendment protection and weaker candidates for criminal prosecution. Mental state evidence, including the sender’s emotional state, history of mental health issues, and the circumstances surrounding the message, is relevant to both the criminal intent element and the constitutional analysis.

How Are Written Threat Cases Charged in Polk County?

Written threat charges in Polk County and the 10th Judicial Circuit typically arise from: domestic disputes (text messages between former partners), custody conflicts (communications between co-parents), neighbor or workplace disputes, and social media arguments that escalate. Law enforcement in Polk County regularly makes arrests for § 836.10 based on screenshots provided by the alleged victim — often without obtaining context, prior messages, or the full communication history. I regularly obtain the complete message thread, evaluate the relationship context, and argue that the isolated screenshot the State is relying on does not constitute a true threat when viewed in full context.

Frequently Asked Questions — Written Threat Defense in Florida

Is sending a threatening text message a felony in Florida?

Yes — under § 836.10, sending a written or electronic threat to kill or do bodily harm to a specific person is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The statute explicitly covers text messages, emails, social media posts, direct messages, and other electronic records.

Can a social media post be charged as a written threat in Florida?

Yes. Florida § 836.10 was amended specifically to cover social media content. A Facebook post, Instagram comment, Snapchat message, or any public or private social media communication threatening to kill or do bodily harm to a specific person qualifies under the statute. Context, intent, and the specificity of the target are all relevant defense considerations.

Does the First Amendment protect threatening messages in Florida?

The First Amendment does not protect “true threats” — but it does protect hyperbole, venting, conditional statements, and communications that do not convey a genuine intent to commit violence. Under Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the prosecution must prove subjective awareness that the statement could be perceived as threatening. Statements made in anger without intent to follow through, in a context where no reasonable person would expect violence, may be constitutionally protected.

What happens if I sent the message during a mental health crisis in Florida?

A mental health crisis at the time of the communication is directly relevant to the criminal intent element and to sentencing. If the message was sent during a documented psychiatric episode, an involuntary hospitalization, or a period of severe emotional distress — without genuine intent to commit violence — that evidence is admissible at trial and essential to the mitigation presentation at sentencing. Mental health diversion programs may also be available in the 10th Judicial Circuit for qualifying defendants.

Can written threat charges be dropped or reduced in Florida?

Yes — written threat charges are among the most frequently reduced charges in Florida, particularly when the communication arose from a domestic or custody dispute, the parties have since reconciled, or the full message context reveals the communication was not a genuine threat. Charges can be dropped entirely when constitutional issues (First Amendment) are raised effectively, reduced to a misdemeanor through plea negotiation, or resolved through no-information (State declines to prosecute) when the evidence of criminal intent is weak.

Social Media Evidence: Authentication and Context

The majority of written threats cases in Florida today involve social media posts, direct messages, or text messages — not handwritten letters. Digital evidence introduces a layer of complexity the State often underestimates. Under Florida’s Evidence Code and federal authentication standards, the State must prove: (1) that the defendant actually sent the message (not just that it came from an account associated with their name); (2) that the account had not been hacked, spoofed, or accessed by another person; (3) that the screenshot or printout accurately reflects the original message without editing; and (4) that the metadata (sender IP, timestamp, device ID) supports the attribution. Social media account security is notoriously weak — shared passwords, forgotten logged-in devices, and family member access to accounts are all genuine alternative explanations. I have successfully argued authentication failures in written threats cases where the State assumed the defendant sent a message simply because it came from their Facebook account.

First Amendment Analysis: Not All Threats Are Criminal

The First Amendment protects a significant category of emotionally charged, angry, and even violent-sounding speech. In Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court held that only “true threats” — statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence — fall outside First Amendment protection. Hyperbole, political speech, song lyrics, rap lyrics, venting, and expressions of general anger do not constitute true threats. Florida’s § 836.10 must be read in light of this First Amendment framework. Courts applying the statute must find that the communication was a genuine threat — not merely offensive, disturbing, or intimidating language. A post saying “I’m going to kill everyone who does this to me” in a clearly hyperbolic context is legally distinct from a specific, targeted message naming an individual and providing operational detail. I litigate the First Amendment boundary aggressively in these cases.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Threats

Florida courts have grappled with whether conditional threats — “if you do X, I will hurt you” — satisfy the elements of § 836.10. The statute requires that the communication place the recipient “in fear.” Some courts have held that conditional threats can satisfy the statute when the condition is plausible and the fear is objectively reasonable. Others have found conditional threats insufficient because the recipient’s fear depends entirely on their own future conduct. This is an active area of litigation, and the outcome depends heavily on the specific language, context, and relationship between the parties. I research the applicable case law in every § 836.10 case and file motions that frame the statutory and constitutional analysis precisely — because ambiguity in the law is the defense’s friend.

Digital Forensics: Challenging the Investigation

Law enforcement in written threats cases frequently obtains records from social media platforms via subpoena — IP logs, login history, message content, and device identifiers. I request full disclosure of all law enforcement digital forensics reports, including the preservation subpoenas, platform responses, and chain of custody for any device seized from the defendant. Common issues I look for: Was the warrant for the device properly limited in scope? Were messages extracted using forensically validated tools (Cellebrite, UFED) and can the results be verified? Did law enforcement examine the full thread — or cherry-pick the threatening messages while ignoring context that negates criminal intent? A text message that says “I’ll kill you” in isolation looks very different when the full thread reveals it was sent in response to the recipient’s own physical threats against the defendant.

Written Threats vs. Stalking: Overlapping Charges

Prosecutors in Polk County frequently charge written threats under § 836.10 alongside stalking under § 784.048 or cyberstalking under § 784.048(1)(d). Stalking requires a “course of conduct” — a pattern of repeated following, harassing, or cyberstalking directed at a specific person without a legitimate purpose and causing substantial emotional distress. A single written threat does not constitute stalking. But a pattern of threatening communications, combined with other harassing conduct, can support both charges. The defense strategy differs: § 836.10 requires proving each message was a true threat; stalking requires the State to prove the pattern was without any legitimate purpose. When both are charged, I move to sever them procedurally if the evidence on one count would prejudice the jury on the other — because a jury that has heard evidence of a “pattern” is more likely to treat a single message as a threat.

Related Practice Areas

• Violent Crimes Defense — Overview
• Domestic Violence Defense
• Aggravated Assault — § 784.021
• Stalking & Cyberstalking — § 784.048
• False Imprisonment — § 787.02