Threats of Violence Attorney | Duluth, MN

Fighting a Threats of Violence Accusation in Duluth with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

The moment you are accused of Threats of Violence in Duluth or any of the serene communities across Northern Minnesota, your world can feel as though it’s been ripped apart. That sudden, jarring accusation, often stemming from a misunderstanding, an emotional outburst, or a perceived misstep, isn’t just about a potential legal penalty; it’s a direct assault on your reputation, your standing in a community that values peace and safety, and your very future. Whether you were caught in a moment of frustration in Proctor, misunderstood in a heated exchange in St. Louis County, or found yourself in an unfortunate situation in Two Harbors, the label of “threatener” can feel like a brand. You start to question everything: your job, your relationships in your neighborhood, and how your family in Cloquet or Bemidji will cope with the fallout. The state, with all its power and resources, is now pointing a finger, and the sheer weight of that accusation can be paralyzing.

This isn’t just a legal challenge; it’s a profound personal crisis. The whispers can begin, the judgments can form, and the fear of a permanent mark on your record can be overwhelming. In a close-knit region like Northern Minnesota, where trust is built over years and community well-being is paramount, a Threats of Violence charge can feel like an immediate sentence of isolation and public disapproval. But it’s crucial to understand this: an accusation is not a conviction. It is the beginning of a fight, not the end of your life. This is precisely when you need an advocate who understands the stakes, who will stand unflinchingly between you and the power of the state, and who will forge a clear path forward through strength, strategy, and an unwavering commitment to your defense.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

A conviction for Threats of Violence, even if it doesn’t lead to the maximum sentence, can carry far more severe consequences than just fines or a brief jail stay. It can cast a long shadow over every aspect of your life, impacting your future long after the courtroom doors close.

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for Threats of Violence in Minnesota will result in a permanent criminal record. This isn’t something that simply fades away with time. Every background check for a new job, every application for housing, and even volunteer opportunities can reveal this mark. In a place like Duluth, where community safety is a serious concern, a criminal record involving threats of violence can lead to immediate questions and assumptions that undermine your standing. It can limit your opportunities, forcing you to perpetually explain a past mistake, a moment of misjudgment, or a misunderstanding, no matter how minor it seemed at the time. This record becomes a persistent burden, constantly impacting how you are perceived and what doors remain open to you in both your personal and professional life.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

A conviction for Threats of Violence, particularly under Subdivision 1, which involves threatening a “crime of violence,” will likely result in the loss of your Second Amendment rights. Even convictions under Subdivisions 2 or 3, depending on the specific facts, could trigger federal prohibitions on possessing firearms. For many in Northern Minnesota, where hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense are deeply ingrained in the culture and way of life, the permanent loss of these rights is a deeply personal and significant consequence. An attorney understands the complex interplay between state convictions and federal firearms law and will meticulously fight to protect every right you possess, recognizing the profound impact this loss can have.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

In today’s competitive job market, employers routinely conduct comprehensive background checks. A conviction for Threats of Violence is a significant red flag that can cause potential employers to choose another candidate, even if you are otherwise highly qualified. This is especially true for positions of trust, those involving interaction with the public, or any role where perceived instability could be an issue. Similarly, landlords frequently run background checks, and a criminal record involving threats can make securing housing in Duluth, Cloquet, or Bemidji incredibly challenging. Even in smaller, tight-knit communities like Two Harbors or Proctor, where information travels quickly, a criminal record can create an invisible barrier, making it harder to secure the necessities of life and rebuild your reputation.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

For individuals holding professional licenses—whether as an educator, healthcare provider, or licensed tradesperson—a Threats of Violence conviction can jeopardize your ability to practice your chosen profession. Many licensing boards view criminal convictions, particularly those related to threats or violence, as indicative of a serious lapse in judgment or character. This could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, or even the permanent revocation of your license, effectively ending your career. Beyond formal sanctions, the reputational damage can be immense. In communities across St. Louis County, your reputation is invaluable. An accusation of Threats of Violence can severely erode trust among colleagues, clients, and the community at large, making it incredibly difficult to maintain professional standing and personal dignity.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

Facing a Threats of Violence charge means understanding exactly what the state alleges. This isn’t about vague accusations; it’s about the specific legal definitions and the burden the prosecution carries to prove every single element of the crime.

What Does the State Allege? Threats of Violence Explained in Plain English

When the state charges you with Threats of Violence, they are essentially alleging that you communicated a threat in a way that caused terror or serious public inconvenience, or that you did so with reckless disregard for causing such terror or inconvenience. This isn’t necessarily about carrying out a violent act, but rather about the act of making the threat itself and the impact it has, or was intended to have. The law recognizes that the mere communication of a threat can be deeply damaging and disruptive to individuals and communities.

There are different ways the state can allege this crime. It could involve directly or indirectly threatening a “crime of violence” with the intent to terrorize someone or cause a public disruption, or even recklessly disregarding that risk. It could also involve communicating that an explosive device is present, again with the purpose to terrorize or with reckless disregard. Finally, it could involve displaying a replica firearm or BB gun in a threatening manner, causing or recklessly disregarding the risk of causing terror. Each subdivision of the law addresses a distinct type of threatening conduct, but the core theme is the communication or display of something intended to instill fear or cause significant public distress.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.713

Minnesota Statute 609.713 defines the crime of Threats of Violence, outlining various ways the offense can be committed and the corresponding penalties. Its purpose is to deter and punish actions that instill fear or cause public disruption through the communication or display of threats.

Subdivision 1.Threaten violence; intent to terrorize. Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, vehicle or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. As used in this subdivision, “crime of violence” has the meaning given “violent crime” in section 609.1095, subdivision 1, paragraph (d).

Subd. 2.Communicates to terrorize. Whoever communicates to another with purpose to terrorize another or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, that explosives or an explosive device or any incendiary device is present at a named place or location, whether or not the same is in fact present, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

Subd. 3.Display replica of firearm. (a) Whoever displays, exhibits, brandishes, or otherwise employs a replica firearm or a BB gun in a threatening manner, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if, in doing so, the person either:

(1) causes or attempts to cause terror in another person; or

(2) acts in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror in another person.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision:

(1) “BB gun” means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter; and

(2) “replica firearm” means a device or object that is not defined as a dangerous weapon, and that is a facsimile or toy version of, and reasonably appears to be a pistol, revolver, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, or any other firearm. The term replica firearm includes, but is not limited to, devices or objects that are designed to fire only blanks.

History: 1971 c 845 s 19; 1988 c 712 s 15; 1990 c 461 s 3; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 34; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 45; art 3 s 23; 1995 c 244 s 24,25; 1998 c 367 art 6 s 15; 2015 c 21 art 1 s 109

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Threats of Violence

The state carries the entire burden of proof in a Threats of Violence case. This means the prosecution must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that every single element of the crime, as defined by Minnesota law, was present. If the prosecutor fails to prove even one of these elements, their case against you collapses, and you cannot be convicted. This is the fundamental principle of criminal justice, and it is the ground on which a dedicated defense attorney fights. Your defense will focus on undermining the state’s ability to prove these elements, one by one, ensuring that the burden truly rests on their shoulders.

Threatens, Directly or Indirectly (Subd. 1): The prosecution must prove that you made a threat, either explicitly or through your actions, that indicated an intention to commit a “crime of violence.” This element often hinges on interpretation of words or gestures. An attorney will scrutinize the alleged threat, arguing that it was not a direct or indirect threat of a “crime of violence” as legally defined, or that it was misinterpreted, taken out of context, or simply not a threat at all in the eyes of a reasonable person.
To Commit Any Crime of Violence (Subd. 1): The threat must specifically be to commit a “crime of violence.” This is a defined term in Minnesota law. The prosecution must prove that the threatened act falls under this specific legal definition, not just any act that might be perceived as aggressive. A defense attorney will examine whether the alleged threatened act actually qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the relevant statute, challenging vague or overbroad interpretations by the state.
Purpose to Terrorize or Cause Public Inconvenience / Reckless Disregard (Subd. 1 & 2): This is a crucial mental state element. The prosecution must prove that your purpose in making the threat was to cause terror in another, or to cause a public disruption like an evacuation, or that you acted with reckless disregard for the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. An attorney will challenge this by presenting evidence that demonstrates a lack of such intent or reckless disregard, perhaps arguing that the statement was a joke, a figure of speech, an outburst of frustration without genuine intent, or a misunderstanding of your words.
Communicates to Another (Subd. 2): For bomb threats, the prosecution must prove that you communicated to another person that an explosive device was present. This means showing that the communication actually reached another individual. An attorney will examine the chain of communication, challenging whether the message was truly conveyed as alleged, or if there were issues with delivery, receipt, or understanding of the communication.
Explosives or Incendiary Device (Subd. 2): This element requires that the communication specifically mention explosives, an explosive device, or an incendiary device. The actual presence of such a device is irrelevant; it’s the communication about it that matters. A defense attorney will ensure that the alleged communication explicitly referred to these specific types of devices, and not just general threats that do not fit the narrow definition of the statute.
Displays Replica Firearm or BB Gun in Threatening Manner (Subd. 3): For charges under Subdivision 3, the prosecution must prove that you used a replica firearm or BB gun in a specific threatening manner. This involves more than just having it; it requires actions that are demonstrably threatening. An attorney will scrutinize the actions described by witnesses or captured on video, arguing that the display was not genuinely threatening, or that the item was not actually a “replica firearm” or “BB gun” as defined by the statute.
Causes or Attempts to Cause Terror / Reckless Disregard (Subd. 3): Similar to the other subdivisions, the prosecution must prove that the display of the replica firearm or BB gun either caused or attempted to cause terror, or that you acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror. This again focuses on your intent and the perceived impact of your actions. A defense attorney will challenge this subjective element by presenting evidence of innocent intent, or by demonstrating that a reasonable person would not have been terrorized by the display.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Threats of Violence Conviction

Being convicted of Threats of Violence carries serious statutory penalties in Minnesota, underscoring the critical need for a strong defense. The law differentiates penalties based on the specific subdivision of the crime charged, reflecting the severity of the perceived threat.

Subdivision 1: Threaten Violence; Intent to Terrorize

This is the most severe form of the offense. A conviction under Subdivision 1 is a felony. You may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. A felony conviction of this nature can lead to significant prison time, a substantial financial burden, and the automatic loss of various civil rights, including the right to vote, serve on a jury, and possess firearms, long after any sentence is completed.

Subdivision 2: Communicates to Terrorize (Bomb Threats)

A conviction under Subdivision 2, which pertains to communicating the presence of explosives, is also a felony. You may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. While the potential prison time is less than Subdivision 1, it remains a felony with all the associated long-term consequences, including a permanent criminal record and the loss of civil liberties.

Subdivision 3: Display Replica of Firearm

A conviction under Subdivision 3, involving the threatening display of a replica firearm or BB gun, is a gross misdemeanor. You may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. While not a felony, a gross misdemeanor conviction still carries serious repercussions, including potential jail time, a substantial fine, and a permanent mark on your criminal record that can significantly impact future opportunities.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An accusation of Threats of Violence is not a conviction. It is a critical juncture where your freedom, your reputation, and your future hang in the balance, and it demands an aggressive, strategic counter-offensive. The state may have brought charges, but their case is merely a collection of allegations and evidence they believe supports their narrative. That narrative must be rigorously tested, challenged, and, if necessary, dismantled piece by piece. You are not simply a passive subject of the legal process; you are a client for whom a dedicated defense attorney will fight tooth and nail. The fight starts now, and it begins with a clear, assertive plan.

This isn’t a moment for hesitation or hoping the charges will simply disappear. The state, through its police and prosecutors, is working actively to build a case against you. To stand a chance, you need an advocate who is equally proactive, examining every piece of evidence, scrutinizing every police procedure, and identifying every weakness in the prosecution’s argument. This means challenging witness statements, dissecting digital evidence like text messages or social media posts, and asserting your constitutional rights at every turn. Your defense is not about waiting to see what the state does; it is about anticipating their moves and strategically positioning yourself to defend your freedom and your future.

How a Threats of Violence Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

A Threats of Violence charge can be challenged in numerous ways, and a comprehensive defense strategy will explore every avenue. My approach is to aggressively question the state’s narrative and present a compelling alternative based on the facts and the law.

Lack of Intent or Reckless Disregard

A core element of Threats of Violence is often the defendant’s mental state: did they intend to terrorize, or act with reckless disregard? This is highly subjective and ripe for challenge.

Misinterpretation or Exaggeration: What was said or done may have been misinterpreted by the alleged victim or exaggerated to law enforcement. An attorney will argue that the communication or display, when viewed objectively and in context, did not constitute a threat of violence with the required intent to terrorize or cause public inconvenience. Perhaps it was a figure of speech, a hyperbolic statement, or a misunderstanding.
No Genuine Threat: The statement or action may have been made in frustration, anger, or as a joke, without any genuine intent to carry out violence or to terrorize anyone. An attorney will present evidence to show that the words or actions, while perhaps ill-advised, lacked the malicious intent required by the statute, demonstrating that a reasonable person would not have genuinely feared for their safety or believed a crime would be committed.
Lack of Reckless Disregard: For charges involving “reckless disregard,” the prosecution must prove that you were aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that your actions would cause terror or public inconvenience and that you consciously disregarded that risk. An attorney can argue that you were not aware of such a risk, or that your actions were not truly “reckless” in the legal sense.

Context and Circumstances

The precise context in which the alleged threat occurred is paramount. Words or actions can take on entirely different meanings depending on the surrounding circumstances.

Taken Out of Context: A statement or action, when isolated from the larger conversation or situation, can appear threatening, but when viewed in its full context, it loses its menacing quality. An attorney will present the complete narrative, including prior conversations, ongoing disputes, or the general environment, to demonstrate that the alleged threat was taken out of context and misconstrued.
Conditional Threat: Some threats are conditional and do not represent an immediate or genuine intent to commit violence. For example, “If you don’t stop, I’ll call the police” is very different from “I’m going to hurt you.” An attorney will analyze whether the alleged threat was conditional or merely a statement of future intent that does not meet the statutory definition.
Legitimate Purpose: The communication or display might have had a legitimate purpose, such as self-defense, a lawful warning, or a dramatic performance, rather than an intent to terrorize. An attorney will investigate the defendant’s true purpose and present it as an affirmative defense, demonstrating that their actions were justified or had a lawful explanation.

Lack of Communication or Dissemination

For the threat to be a crime, it generally must be communicated to another person. Challenges can arise if the communication was not effectively made.

No Direct Communication: The alleged threat may not have been directly communicated to the purported victim, or to anyone at all. Perhaps it was a private thought, a statement overheard by chance, or a comment made only to oneself or to an inanimate object. An attorney will argue that the communication element of the statute was not met.
Unidentifiable Threat: In some cases, the threat may be so vague or indirect that it cannot reasonably be attributed to a specific person, or it did not clearly convey the intent to commit a crime of violence. An attorney will challenge the clarity and specificity of the alleged threat, arguing it was not a legally cognizable communication.
Lack of Credibility: While the statute doesn’t require the threat to be credible, an attorney can argue that a reasonable person would not have perceived the communication as a genuine threat, thereby undermining the prosecution’s claim of intent to terrorize or reckless disregard.

Mistaken Identity or False Accusation

In high-stress situations or due to personal animosity, individuals can be wrongly identified or falsely accused.

Alibi: You may have a verifiable alibi proving you were not at the location where the alleged threat was made or at the time it occurred. An attorney will gather and present alibi evidence, such as witness testimony, surveillance footage, or digital records, to demonstrate you could not have committed the crime.
Misidentification: Eyewitness identification can be unreliable, especially in chaotic or emotional circumstances. An attorney will challenge the identification procedures used by law enforcement and highlight discrepancies in witness descriptions or unreliable witness testimony to argue that you were mistakenly identified as the perpetrator.
False Accusation/Motive to Lie: The alleged victim or witness may have a motive to fabricate or exaggerate the threat, such as personal animosity, revenge, or a desire for attention. An attorney will investigate potential motives for false accusation and use cross-examination to expose biases or inconsistencies in their testimony.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

Navigating a Threats of Violence charge requires understanding how these legal defenses play out in the real world, especially within the unique context of Northern Minnesota.

Bemidji: The Misunderstood Email

Imagine you are a Bemidji resident involved in a heated online discussion forum about a contentious local zoning issue. In a moment of extreme frustration, you type a sarcastic comment, something to the effect of, “If this goes through, someone’s going to blow a gasket!” referring to the community’s anger, not actual violence. A forum moderator, misinterpreting your statement as a literal threat of violence or a bomb threat, reports it to the police, leading to a Threats of Violence charge.

In this situation, the defense of Lack of Intent or Reckless Disregard and Context and Circumstances would be paramount. An attorney would argue that your statement was a figure of speech, common in heated discussions, and not a genuine threat. Evidence would be presented to show the full context of the online discussion, your past non-violent behavior, and perhaps even expert testimony on online communication nuances. The defense would highlight that your true intent was to express frustration, not to terrorize anyone or cause public inconvenience, and that a reasonable person, understanding the context, would not interpret the phrase literally.

Cloquet: The Garage Sale Gone Sour

Consider a scenario in Cloquet where you are having a garage sale. A customer becomes aggressive, arguing over a price, and starts to harass you on your property. In an attempt to make them leave, you pick up a toy dart gun from a box of items for sale and jokingly say, “You need to leave before I make you leave!” The customer, feeling intimidated despite the toy, reports you for displaying a replica firearm in a threatening manner, leading to a charge under Subdivision 3.

Here, the defense of Lack of Intent or Reckless Disregard and Context and Circumstances would be crucial. An attorney would argue that you had no intent to cause terror and that a reasonable person would understand a toy dart gun to be harmless, especially within the context of a garage sale. Evidence would be presented to show the toy’s harmless nature, the customer’s aggressive behavior that prompted your response, and that your statement was meant as a mild deterrent, not a genuine threat. The defense would emphasize that your actions did not cause or attempt to cause terror, nor were they made in reckless disregard of causing terror.

Two Harbors: The Campfire Story

Picture a group of friends gathered around a campfire in a remote area near Two Harbors, telling ghost stories and exaggerated tales. You, in an attempt to make your story more dramatic, jokingly describe a scenario involving a fictional “explosive device” hidden somewhere in the woods as part of your narrative. One friend, who is particularly anxious, takes your story seriously and reports it to the authorities, resulting in a charge of communicating to terrorize under Subdivision 2.

This scenario is a prime example for the defense of Lack of Intent or Reckless Disregard and Context and Circumstances. An attorney would argue that your statement was made in a social, recreational context, intended as entertainment, not as a genuine communication of a bomb threat. Witness testimony from other friends present would be crucial to establish the lighthearted, fictional nature of the conversation. The defense would highlight that you had no purpose to terrorize and did not act in reckless disregard of causing terror, as the context made it clear the story was not to be taken literally.

Proctor: The Road Rage Outburst

Imagine you are driving through Proctor, and another driver cuts you off dangerously, nearly causing an accident. In a fit of momentary anger, you roll down your window and yell a vague, angry statement like, “I’m going to get you!” before immediately driving away and regretting your words. The other driver, feeling genuinely threatened, reports your license plate, leading to a Threats of Violence charge under Subdivision 1.

In this instance, the defenses of Lack of Intent or Reckless Disregard and Context and Circumstances are paramount. An attorney would argue that your statement, while regrettable, was a spontaneous outburst of anger in a specific, high-stress road rage incident, not a calculated threat made with the purpose to terrorize or to commit an actual “crime of violence.” The defense would emphasize the fleeting nature of the exchange, your immediate departure, and that your words, in the heat of the moment, did not reflect a genuine intent to carry out harm, nor did they constitute reckless disregard of truly causing terror to a reasonable person once the moment passed.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

When you are accused of Threats of Violence, you are facing the full weight of the state. This is not a battle to fight alone. You need a dedicated, relentless advocate in your corner, someone who understands the nuances of Minnesota law and the specifics of the local judicial system. A defense attorney is not just a lawyer; they are your shield, your strategist, and your voice when yours is being drowned out by accusations.

Countering the Resources of the State

The state of Minnesota, through its various agencies, has virtually limitless resources to prosecute you. They have investigators, forensic teams, police officers, and a team of prosecuting attorneys, all working diligently to build a case against you. They have the power to compel testimony, gather digital evidence from phones and social media, and dedicate significant time and money to secure a conviction. Trying to go up against this formidable force on your own is like bringing a whisper to a shout. A dedicated defense attorney levels the playing field. They have their own network of investigators, their own knowledge of legal precedents, and their own strategies for dissecting the prosecution’s case. They understand how to challenge evidence, identify procedural errors in police conduct or evidence collection, and exploit weaknesses in the state’s narrative, ensuring that you are not overwhelmed by the sheer power and resources arrayed against you.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Every courthouse, every prosecutor, and every judge in St. Louis County has their own way of doing things. From Duluth to Cloquet, from Two Harbors to Proctor, the local legal landscape is complex and unforgiving. Without an intimate understanding of these localized procedures, unwritten rules, and individual tendencies, you are at a significant disadvantage. A defense attorney who regularly practices in the St. Louis County courts brings invaluable strategic command to your case. They know which arguments resonate with particular judges, how certain prosecutors tend to approach various cases, and what motions are most likely to succeed in a given courtroom. This localized knowledge is not something you can learn from a book; it comes from years of direct experience, allowing your attorney to navigate the system efficiently and strategically on your behalf, maximizing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report

When the police file their report, they are presenting one version of events—their version. This narrative, often based on initial observations, limited information, and the statements of the accuser, can be incomplete, biased, or simply wrong. It rarely captures the full context of the situation, your true intentions, or the nuances of the interaction. The police report becomes the foundation of the state’s case, but it is not the whole story, and it is certainly not your story. A dedicated defense attorney understands this fundamental imbalance. They will not simply accept the police report as fact. Instead, they will meticulously investigate every detail, seek out alternative explanations, interview witnesses who might provide a different perspective, and uncover evidence that supports your truth. They will fight to ensure that your side of the story—the full, nuanced account of what happened—is heard and given the weight it deserves, rather than allowing the prosecution’s narrow interpretation to define your fate.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

Facing a Threats of Violence charge can feel isolating, as if no one believes you or understands the true context of what happened. You need more than just legal advice; you need an unwavering commitment from someone who truly believes in fighting for you. This means a defense attorney who is not afraid to stand up to the prosecution, who will challenge every piece of evidence, and who will explore every possible avenue for your defense. It means an attorney who will tirelessly negotiate for the best possible outcome, whether that’s a dismissal of charges, a reduction to a lesser offense, or a victory at trial. This commitment extends beyond the courtroom, offering guidance and support as you navigate the emotional and practical challenges of facing serious criminal charges. Your attorney’s dedication is your most powerful asset in the fight for your freedom and your future.

Your Questions Answered

What constitutes a “threat” under Minnesota’s Threats of Violence statute?

A “threat” can be direct or indirect, involving words, gestures, or actions that convey an intent to commit a crime of violence, or in the case of Subdivision 3, the threatening display of a replica firearm or BB gun.

Is intent important in a Threats of Violence case?

Yes, intent is absolutely crucial. For most subdivisions, the prosecution must prove you acted with the specific “purpose to terrorize” or with “reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.”

Can an accidental statement lead to a Threats of Violence charge?

While intent is key, charges can be brought even for statements made in “reckless disregard” of causing terror or inconvenience. However, a defense attorney can argue that the statement was truly accidental and lacked the necessary mental state.

What is a “crime of violence” in the context of this statute?

“Crime of violence” is a specific legal term defined in Minnesota Statute 609.1095, subdivision 1, paragraph (d). It refers to certain serious offenses that typically involve the use or threat of physical force against a person or property.

Does a Threats of Violence conviction mean I will go to jail or prison?

Not necessarily, but it is a serious risk. Subdivision 1 and 2 are felonies with potential prison sentences, while Subdivision 3 is a gross misdemeanor with potential jail time. The outcome depends on the specific facts, your criminal history, and the strength of your defense.

How does this law apply to online comments or social media posts?

The law can apply to online comments or social media posts if they meet the criteria of a threat made with the required intent or reckless disregard, and are communicated to another person. Context is critically important in these cases.

Can a Threats of Violence charge affect my right to own a gun in Minnesota?

Yes, a conviction for Threats of Violence, particularly under Subdivisions 1 and 2 (felonies), will result in the loss of your Second Amendment rights to possess firearms. Even Subdivision 3 could potentially impact gun rights in certain circumstances.

What should I do if I am accused of Threats of Violence?

Do not make any statements to law enforcement. Exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact a criminal defense attorney in Duluth or St. Louis County.

Can I defend myself by saying it was just a joke?

You can, but it’s a difficult argument without legal representation. An attorney can help present evidence and arguments to show that your statement was indeed a joke or hyperbole, and lacked the necessary intent to be considered a criminal threat.

What is the difference between Threats of Violence and Harassment?

While related, Threats of Violence focuses specifically on the communication of a threat of violence or a bomb, or the display of a replica firearm to cause terror. Harassment (MN Statute 609.749) covers a broader range of intentional behaviors that cause a person to feel terrorized, threatened, or persecuted, including repeated unwanted contact or surveillance.

Will a Threats of Violence conviction impact my professional license?

Yes, a conviction for Threats of Violence can significantly jeopardize professional licenses across various fields, as licensing boards often view such offenses as indicative of a lack of judgment or character.

What if the alleged victim doesn’t want to press charges?

Even if the alleged victim expresses a desire not to press charges, the state (the prosecutor’s office) has the ultimate authority to pursue the case. Their decision is based on public safety and the evidence available, not solely on the victim’s wishes.

Can a defense attorney help reduce the charge?

Yes, a defense attorney can negotiate with the prosecutor to potentially reduce the charge to a lesser offense, or even have the charges dismissed, depending on the strength of the evidence and the specifics of your case.

How long do Threats of Violence charges stay on my record?

A conviction for Threats of Violence will result in a permanent criminal record, which can be seen indefinitely unless it is successfully expunged. Expungement eligibility varies and often requires a significant waiting period.

What is the role of a “replica firearm” in this statute?

A “replica firearm” or “BB gun” in this statute refers to a device that reasonably appears to be a real firearm, but is not defined as a dangerous weapon. Its threatening display with the intent or reckless disregard of causing terror constitutes a gross misdemeanor.