Background
Between June 2019 and February 2020, Dominic Rainey made a series of violent threats across multiple platforms. In June 2019, he posted bomb threats on Whisper — an anonymous social media application that shows posts to users within the same geographic area — targeting Walmart, Chick-fil-A, and the interstate in Plattsburgh, Clinton County. Users who saw the posts called police, who dispatched a trooper and K-9 unit to sweep the parking lots for explosives. During a subsequent police interview, Rainey admitted authoring the posts to “blow off some steam” but acknowledged he targeted high-traffic locations. He was charged with falsely reporting an incident in the first degree.
In September 2019, after a Snapchat post circulated a photo of Rainey with a warning that he was “making physical threats and stalking girls,” Rainey engaged in a private Snapchat conversation with the acquaintance who sent him the warning. He wrote that the situation would “make me into the greatest mass murder the world has ever seen,” stated that “every male” was “dead,” and put “Saranac” — referring to Saranac High School — on his “list.” Screenshots circulated among third parties. He was charged with making a terroristic threat.
In February 2020, while released on recognizance for the June 2019 charges, Rainey sent 11 unsolicited emails to WPTZ, a Plattsburgh television news station, complaining about its coverage of his arrests. The emails escalated to threats: he claimed to have “19 fool proof plans” in which the station would be blown up in seven, explained how to rewire a flip phone as a remote detonator, and threatened to “kill ever[y] last one of you on Thanksgiving as you sit at your table with your families — kids included.” WPTZ’s news director changed employee safety protocols in response. Rainey was charged with a second count of making a terroristic threat.
Following a jury trial at which Rainey was convicted on all counts, he was sentenced to an aggregate 12 years in prison plus five years of post-release supervision. He appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division issued a split result on the terroristic threat counts and affirmed on the remaining charges.
Snapchat conviction reversed. The court agreed with Rainey that his September 2019 Snapchat conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The making-a-terroristic-threat statute (Penal Law § 490.20) requires that the defendant act “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” The September 2019 statement was made in a private one-on-one conversation that Rainey did not initiate; he did not request or encourage anyone to circulate it. Even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was no evidence that Rainey intended his private message to intimidate Saranac High School students or any other civilian population. The relevant superior court information was dismissed.
WPTZ email conviction affirmed. The February 2020 emails were a different matter. Rainey sent them unsolicited to WPTZ’s general news-tip address, detailing bomb-making plans targeting the station specifically to influence its news coverage of him — which the court observed fits the common understanding of terrorism, analogizing to the Charlie Hebdo attack. WPTZ employees’ changed safety protocols and the detailed technical specificity of Rainey’s bomb-making descriptions — including a modified flip-phone detonator — provided sufficient basis for the jury to find that WPTZ employees reasonably feared imminent danger. The absence-of-intent-to-act-on-it defense was rejected: Penal Law § 490.20(2) expressly provides that a defendant’s lack of actual intent to carry out the threat is not a defense to making it.
Whisper falsely-reporting conviction affirmed. Rainey’s bomb-threat posts on Whisper constituted falsely reporting an incident under Penal Law § 240.60(6). The court found that Walmart, Chick-fil-A, and the interstate are “public places” under the statute, that a bomb warning implies an impending explosion, and that police mobilization in response — coupled with Rainey’s admission that he targeted high-traffic locations — supported the jury’s verdict despite an acquittal not being unreasonable.
Reverse Batson challenge upheld. Defense counsel used 11 of his peremptory challenges to exclude women — four of six on the first panel, seven on the second. The prosecutor’s reverse Batson challenge succeeded when County Court found the gender-neutral explanations pretextual: men with similar characteristics were not challenged, and the prosecutor represented that she overheard defense counsel state his intent to exclude women. The court deferred to County Court’s credibility findings, which were amply supported by the record.
With one terroristic threat count reversed, the aggregate sentence was reduced to 7.5 years in prison plus five years post-release supervision.
Key Takeaways
- A private social media message that the defendant did not intend to circulate cannot support a conviction for making a terroristic threat — the prosecution must prove the defendant intended the statement to intimidate a civilian population, not merely that others later spread it.
- Unsolicited emails to a media outlet threatening bombing in retaliation for news coverage can constitute a terroristic threat against a civilian population; that the defendant later wrote he had no intention of acting on the threat is not a defense under Penal Law § 490.20(2).
- A defendant’s admission that he chose targets to maximize casualties is powerful evidence supporting a falsely-reporting conviction, even where the defendant frames the posts as venting; law enforcement mobilization in response further supports the element of “likely public alarm.”
- Reverse Batson challenges apply the same three-step framework as standard Batson challenges; a systematic pattern of excluding jurors of one gender, combined with overheard statements of discriminatory intent, will support a finding of purposeful discrimination.
Why It Matters
Rainey is one of the first New York appellate decisions to draw a meaningful line between private social media threats and public ones for purposes of the making-a-terroristic-threat statute. The court’s holding that a private message — even one that gets circulated — does not satisfy the intent element unless the defendant intended to intimidate a population has significant implications for social media prosecutions. Defendants who post threatening content in semi-private settings can argue that the circulation was unintended; the prosecution must prove subjective intent to reach a civilian audience.
At the same time, the WPTZ email holding confirms that unsolicited, detailed threats directed at a specific institution to coerce its conduct are squarely within the statute — and that media organizations targeted for their coverage are “civilian populations” for purposes of the terrorism statutes. For law enforcement and prosecutors in New York, the decision clarifies which platform matters: a targeted, unsolicited email campaign carries far more prosecutorial weight than a private DM that spread without the sender’s encouragement.