Crimes: threats.

Senator Rubio, with principal coauthor Assembly Member Patel and other sponsors, advances a proposal to add a new crime to California’s Penal Code that criminalizes willful threats to commit death or great bodily injury at daycare centers, schools and universities, workplaces, houses of worship, and medical facilities, including threats posted online. The offense requires that the threat be made with specific intent that it be taken as a threat, and that, on its face and in context, it is unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific enough to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution, and that it causes the threatened individuals to reasonably fear for their safety. Adults charged under the statute could face confinement in county jail for up to one year or a longer county jail term under available sentencing options; for individuals under 18, the bill provides a pathway to refer them to juvenile services if eligible, with misdemeanor punishment if not eligible. The measure also makes clear that charging under this new statute does not preclude prosecution under other laws, and that a person cannot be convicted for the same threat under both this new statute and the existing general threats statute.

Key details define the scope and enforcement: the prohibited threats may be made by any means, including an image or threat posted on an internet page, directed at the listed locations; the claim of specific intent and the resulting fear are required elements; the framework interacts with existing sentencing structures and juvenile services. The new offense operates alongside the existing threats statute without replacing it, and prosecutors must choose whether to pursue the new charge or the older one for a given threat, with no double punishment for the same conduct. Enforcement would involve local law enforcement, prosecutors, and digital forensics, given the inclusion of online postings. For juveniles, eligible offenders may be referred to services under provisions used for juvenile diversion; if ineligible, the offense is treated as a misdemeanor.

Fiscal and implementation considerations center on a state-mandated local program arising from creating a new crime and imposing additional duties on local agencies. The act does not automatically authorize state reimbursements for local costs, but the state mandates process could provide reimbursement if other mandated costs are identified. No explicit general appropriation accompanies the bill, and fiscal committee review and local-program considerations are required. Implementation would hinge on an effective date, training for law enforcement and prosecutors, and coordination with schools, workplaces, and juvenile services. Taken together, the proposal situates a policy focus on threats disseminated online and at high-risk locations, with a framework that preserves existing threat statutes while adding a location-specific, juvenile-diversion pathway and a structure for local budgetary considerations.