When Anger Becomes a Crime: Threats of Violence in Minnesota
In State v. Fitch, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reaffirmed a principle that continues to shape threats of violence prosecutions in Minnesota: words spoken in anger are not automatically protected speech, and context matters. When words reasonably convey that there is a genuine intent to commit violence that creates fear in the listener, it may constitute a “true threat” which is unprotected by the First Amendment. Because of this ruling, it is important to know when your words are protected and when they could put you behind bars.
What Was State v. Fitch?
State v. Fitch arose out of a heated confrontation between two neighbors. During their argument, Fitch pointed a finger at his neighbor and said, “I’m going to fucking kill you and bury you in Stillwater”. Fitch also jingled his car keys and brandished a weapon during this incident. There were two witnesses, and Fitch was charged and ultimately convicted by a jury for making threats of violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd.
On appeal, Fitch raised two arguments; he claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because his statement just reflected his general anger, not a genuine intent to commit a threat of violence. Second, he argued that his statement was protected by speech under the First Amendment, as it did not rise to the level of a “true threat”.
The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. First, they reasoned that there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, that the evidence presented was sufficient, as reasonable inferences drawn would allow a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, a person commits a criminal threat if he threatens to commit a crime of violence with the purpose of terrorizing another or with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. In State v. Mrozinski, 971 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. 2022), the Minnesota Supreme Court clarified that, consistent with First Amendment constraints, the statute requires proof of four elements:
- Words or actions communicating an intention to injure a person or property;
- A threat to commit a statutorily defined crime of violence;
- Words or conduct that create a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will act on the threat; and
- Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the words will cause extreme fear.
The state relied on direct testimony from a witness on scene, a contractor, and a neighbor about specific words that Fitch used, his aggressiveness towards the other party, and his confrontational nature. These witnesses also testified that they believed Fitch would act on this threat. The Court of Appeals found these witnesses sufficient to provide evidence that a jury could draw reasonable inferences from when interpreting the statutory language of Minn. Stat. §609.713.
Second, they reviewed Fitch’s claim that his words did not rise to the level of a “true threat” and that his words were protected by the First Amendment. Fitch argued that his words were hyperbolic and fleeting, not a literal expression of intent, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. When determining a threat of violence conviction, the question is not whether the defendant planned to carry out the threat immediately, but rather whether the words in such a specific context caused a reasonable person to fear that violence would occur. Additionally, they reasoned that additional conduct, such as brandishing a weapon, can heighten the specificity of a threat, even though this evidence is not required. Therefore, the Court ruled that Fitch’s words, combined with this aggressive behavior and the circumstances of the confrontation, would have created an objectively reasonable fear of violence that removes the constitutional protection under the First Amendment.
Why Fitch Matters
State v. Fitch reinforces several important points for practitioners and citizens to understand. First, direct witness testimony is sufficient to determine both the threatening language of a Defendant and the fear it caused. Second, courts continue to reject the notion that angry or impulsive speech is categorically protected so long as it produces a reasonable fear of violence. Finally, the decision underscores that Minnesota’s threats of violence statute remains firmly aligned with First Amendment jurisprudence following Mrozinski.
For citizens, Fitch is a reminder that words spoken in moments of rage can carry serious criminal consequences. So next time you are in a disagreement with someone, choose your words and your actions very carefully, and if you do find yourself charged with threats of violence, call North Star Criminal Defense. We understand the contemporary nature of the Minnesota courts and work to provide the best representation in District and Appellate Courts.