Definition
Latin: "To the terror of the people." A technical phrase of pleading used in indictments for riot, signifying that the defendants' unlawful assembly or conduct was carried out in a manner calculated to strike fear in the general public. The phrase was a required formal averment in a proper riot indictment at common law — not merely descriptive language but a necessary element of the charge itself.
---
Common Confusion
IN TERROREM POPULI should not be confused with the broader phrase IN TERROREM, which appears most frequently in modern law in the context of in terrorem clauses in wills (also called no-contest clauses) — provisions that threaten to disinherit a beneficiary who challenges the testamentary instrument. The two phrases share a Latin root and a general sense of threatened consequence, but they operate in entirely separate legal domains: IN TERROREM POPULI is a criminal pleading term tied to public-order offenses; IN TERROREM as applied to testamentary clauses is a doctrine of private law and estate planning. Black's first edition compounds this confusion by running the two phrases into the same entry, which may mislead researchers scanning historical sources.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in historical criminal pleading will encounter this phrase as a formal requirement rather than a stylistic choice. At common law, an indictment for riot that failed to allege conduct carried out in terrorem populi was subject to challenge as defective — the phrase served a function analogous to the scienter averment in fraud indictments or the "unlawfully and feloniously" language in felony charges. Its presence or absence in historical indictments is therefore diagnostically significant.
The phrase becomes nearly invisible in American legal sources after the mid-nineteenth century, as statutory codification of riot offenses displaced common law pleading requirements and courts moved away from enforcing Latin formal averments. Researchers examining colonial or early federal-period criminal records will find it in active use; researchers working in post-codification materials will find it chiefly as a relic cited in treatises on criminal pleading to illustrate the strictness of common law indictment practice.
The single citation in both editions of Black's — "4 Car. & P. 373" — refers to Carrington and Payne's English Nisi Prius Reports, a real reporter series covering cases from the 1820s–1840s. This is a narrow English common law citation, and researchers should not assume the phrase carried equal formal weight in all American jurisdictions, where local practice varied considerably even before statutory reform.
A separate trap for researchers: Black's first edition places IN TERROREM POPULI immediately adjacent to maxims concerning testamentary interpretation (In testamentis plenius...), a purely typographic coincidence of alphabetical arrangement. Do not read substantive connection into that proximity.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's are substantively in agreement and nearly identical in wording, confirming that the phrase received no significant reconceptualization between the first and second editions. Both define it as a Latin phrase meaning "to the terror of the people" and identify it as a technical requirement in riot indictments, citing the same Carrington and Payne reference.
Neither edition elaborates on what conduct satisfied the standard, what happened when the averment was omitted, or how American courts treated the requirement. This is a consistent limitation of both sources — they preserve the phrase as a formal term of art without contextualizing its procedural history or jurisdictional reception. Researchers seeking that depth must turn to common law pleading treatises such as Chitty's Criminal Law or Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases, where the requirement is treated more fully.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The phrase is a product of English common law criminal pleading and traveled with that system into American colonial and early state courts. Its continued vitality after American independence varied by jurisdiction. States that early adopted criminal codes or riot statutes frequently eliminated the need for any such formal averment, rendering the phrase historically bounded rather than universally applicable.
---