17
Mar

Threats of Violence Reckless Disregard - Defined

The threats of violence crime – formerly known as terroristic threats – is a serious felony level offense that includes a broad definition. That broad definition has led to plenty of litigation over the years on whether alleged misconduct falls within the broad scope of the statute. This has caused appellate courts to define the terms of the crime in hopes of providing greater context. An area that remained up for interpretation was what constituted threats of violence reckless disregard. Just recently, the Supreme Court chose to (finally) provide a definition to what constitutes “reckless disregard.”

Threats of Violence Reckless Disregard 

As a refresher, under Minn. Stat. 609.713, the crime is stated as follows: threatening to commit any crime of violence with … reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. Our primary post on threats of violence discusses the various definitions applicable to the statute (obviously, except for this new one for reckless disregard).

Moving to ‘reckless disregard,’ the Minnesota Supreme Court chose to further explain what acting recklessly means. Prior case law found that ‘reckless disregard’ requires “deliberate action in disregard of a known, substantial, and unjustifiable risk.” Applying this definition to threats of violence reckless disregard, it requires acting:“in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror,” a defendant must be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her words or actions will cause terror in another, and she must act in conscious disregard of that risk. Because the Court realized how meandering this definition ended up being, it then created four elements that amount to threats of violence reckless disregard:

  1. Through words or actions, the defendant communicates an intention to injure another or their property;
  2. The threat is to commit a statutorily defined crime of violence;
  3. In context, those words or conduct create a reasonable apprehension that the defendant will follow through with or act on the threat; and
  4. The defendants makes the violent threat in conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their words or conduct will cause extreme fear.

Threats of violence reckless disregard is not a specific intent statute, making the voluntary intoxication defense not viable. Still, transitory anger and arguing the allegations simply don’t amount to a threat, reckless disregard, or the threat was not of a serious crime of violence are all viable defenses.

Threats of Violence Attorney 

It cannot be overstated. It is critical to get an experienced threats of violence attorney that knows the nuances of the law and how to develop the best strategy to combat these serious charges. There is simply too much at stake when facing a possible felony conviction, jail time, and the collateral consequences that stem from it.