Arguments and disagreements are something we all experience. Sometimes, these situations can become serious enough that the police become involved. When this happens, these situations are usually addressed with relatively minor misdemeanor level charges, such as disorderly conduct. But sometimes things because so heated that another law is used instead – Minnesota’s threats of violence statute.
Threats of violence (prior to 2015, the statute was called “terroristic threats”) is the big brother to Minnesota’s disorderly conduct statute. 
Disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor, makes it a crime to engage in behavior that is “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy” and that tends to reasonably cause “alarm, anger, or resentment” in the people around them. This covers a wide range of conduct, which is why disorderly conduct is so often used as a reduced charge in plea bargaining. But threats of violence is different and more serious. It applies to people who threaten to commit a violent crime with the purpose of terrorizing another.
Threats of Violence Defined
Minnesota law covers threats of violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713. People can be charged with violating this statute if they threaten to commit any crime of violence with the “purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of [a building, place of assembly, vehicle or other facility], or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.” The phrase “crime of violence” includes things like assault, murder, kidnapping, and other offenses that involve bodily harm or the use of force.
“Intent” and “reckless disregard”
One of the most important parts of this statute – and the part that a good lawyer is likely to focus on when defending a case of this type – is the use of the phrases “purpose to terrorize another” and “reckless disregard”. In criminal law, “purpose” is another word for “intent.” Here, it means that the person who makes the threat must intend that the target feels fear or terror. This is why playfully telling someone “I’m going to kill you!” after they play a trick on you is not a crime. The use of the word “intent” means that, in order to be convicted, there must be proof that the actor wanted the target to experience genuine fear.
The phrase “reckless disregard” is similar. Under this clause, the actor doesn’t need to actually intend to cause terror, but only that they used “reckless disregard” in making the threat. Recklessness means disregarding the potential consequences of your actions, such as making a threat without considering its impact on the victim. This part of the statute criminalizes making a threat even if the actor doesn’t intend to cause fear, but recklessly disregarded the consequences of their words. A common example of this scenario involves a patron being removed from a business (say, a movie theater or a bar). They’re upset about this and in their anger they say something stupid on their way out the door, such as “I’m going to burn this place down!” They might not have actually intended the threat, but even so, the reckless indifference part of the statute might apply.
Threats
The statute doesn’t define or require any specific form of threat. They can take many forms, such as spoken words, written messages, or the like. Today, we see a lot of threatening messages occurring by electronic means, such as email, text messages, or social media. The statute will apply to any of these forms of communication, if the message was sent with the intent to (or in reckless disregard of the risk of) causing the victim to feel terrorized.
Consequences of a Threats of Violence Conviction
Threats of violence is a felony level offense in Minnesota, meaning the consequences of a conviction can be devastating. These cases are often particularly disruptive, because they’re often committed by good, well-intentioned people who made a stupid comment in a moment of anger. Those people suddenly find themselves confronted by the prospect of jail time, probation, and a felony record.
Defending a Threats of Violence Charge
Luckily, there may be a good defense to a threats of violence allegation. As discussed above, the intent piece of this statute is complex and may require the prosecutor to prove what the accused was intending at the time that the threat was made. This can be difficult, depending on the circumstances. In other cases, mistaken identity or other types of defenses may apply. And if the supposed threat was made in jest or as part of a misunderstanding, it may not meet the legal requirements under the statute.
Conclusion
Threats of violence is a serious charge under Minnesota law. Threats made verbally, in writing, or through digital communications can all trigger criminal charges, with drastic consequences. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help by reviewing the facts of your case and determining whether the prosecution can prove that you’ve actually violated the statute. If you find yourself in this unfortunate situation, contact me today to discuss how I can help.
