A jury convicted defendant on several offenses, including two counts of second-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). The terroristic threats convictions related to statements defendant directed at the victim, who presided as the judge over defendant's municipal court case. Defendant was also convicted of making the threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant argued the terroristic threats convictions should be reversed because the jury was not charged pursuant to State v. Fair, 256 N.J. 213 (2024), on whether a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim, in this case a municipal court judge with several years of experience as an attorney and a prosecutor, would have viewed defendant's words as threatening violence. Defendant also raised an as-applied substantive due process challenge to his conviction for making the threats during a declared emergency, arguing there was no nexus between his threats and the state of emergency. The court reversed the terroristic threats convictions and ruled Fair has pipeline retroactivity. Although defense counsel seemingly argued the Fair standard in summations, the trial court charged the jury under the then-existing model charges, which did not provide an objective means of measuring whether defendant's statements constituted terroristic threats. The court also held where the State seeks to enhance a third-degree terroristic threats offense by charging a defendant with making threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, there must be some rational relationship between the threats and the underlying emergency. Otherwise, the conviction will be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge for vagueness on substantive due process grounds. Reversal was warranted here because the threats defendant directed at the victim did not result from or having anything to do with the pandemic or pandemic-related restrictions, and his municipal court case.