Crimes: criminal threats.

Assembly Member Pacheco’s proposal centers the sentencing framework for threats by tying a new aggravating-factor option to felony cases involving threats to death or serious injury, while expanding who counts as “immediate family” and what qualifies as an electronic communication device. The core offense remains: a person willfully threatens such harm with the specific aim that the threat is treated as imminent and serious, causing the threatened person to experience sustained fear. The bill adds a discretionary aggravating factor that a court may consider in sentencing a felony conviction if the threat targeted someone the defendant knew was a state constitutional officer, a Member of the Legislature, or a judge or court commissioner.

Key mechanisms include expanding the definitional scope around who is protected and how threats may be communicated. The aggravating factor relies on the defendant’s knowledge of the target’s official status, with definitions drawn from related government code provisions to identify the high-ranking targets. The bill also broadens “immediate family” to include spouses (including non-marital), parents, children, relatives within the second degree, and others who regularly reside or recently resided in the household. It explicitly lists additional devices under “electronic communication device”—such as telephones, cell phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, and pagers—and ties the concept of “electronic communication” to a federal standard.

In practice, the measure preserves the existing punishment framework, allowing either misdemeanor or felony treatment for the core offense, while giving courts explicit authority to aggravate felony sentences when the target is a protected official and the defendant knew that status. Enforcement considerations include proving the knowledge element and identifying the targeted official class, with the expanded definitions potentially affecting charging and proof strategies. The proposal requires a fiscal-review process but does not request new appropriations, and it does not create a new offense; rather, it alters sentencing discretion and clarifies terms, potentially influencing future incarceration costs depending on how often the aggravating factor is applied.