"[8] However, "the courts recognized that one does not violate a terroristic threat or terroristic threatening statute by making idle talk or jests which do not have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that the speaker will act according to the threat.
[13] The required mens rea element of the offense is generally "that the accused have made the threat with the intent or purpose of causing fear in the victim or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such fear.
"[15] American Law Reports indicates that "the cases are in disagreement over the availability of voluntary intoxication as a defense in a terroristic threat or terroristic threatening prosecution, with intoxication being a defense where a specific criminal intent is an essential element of the offense, but not a defense where the offense is established without specific criminal intent.
"[16] Terroristic-threat statutes have generally been upheld by the courts against constitutional challenges raising claims that such laws violate the Free Speech Clause,[17] are impermissibly vague,[18] or overlap with a criminal assault statute.
[19] In the Model Penal Code, terroristic threats are defined as assault related crimes.