of people served
rated by clients
available to help
Threats of violence, as defined under Minnesota Statute § 609.713, encompass a range of conduct where words or actions are used to instill fear, cause disruption, or communicate danger involving violence, explosives, or replica firearms. This statute recognizes that the act of threatening harm or simulating danger can itself be a serious crime, causing significant distress and public inconvenience even if the threatened act never occurs. The law specifically addresses threats intended to terrorize, threats involving explosives or incendiary devices communicated to terrorize, and the menacing display of replica firearms or BB guns. Understanding this area of law is crucial because statements or actions perceived as threatening can lead to felony or gross misdemeanor charges, depending on the specific nature of the threat and the intent behind it.
The statute breaks down threats of violence into distinct categories. One subdivision focuses on direct or indirect threats to commit a “crime of violence” with the purpose to terrorize, cause evacuation, or create serious public inconvenience, or with reckless disregard for these risks. Another subdivision specifically targets communications about explosives or incendiary devices made with the purpose to terrorize or reckless disregard thereof. A third subdivision addresses the threatening display or use of replica firearms or BB guns to cause terror or in reckless disregard of that risk. Each part of the statute requires specific elements to be proven, particularly concerning the defendant’s intent or recklessness and the nature of the threat or item displayed.
Minnesota law defines the crime of Threats of Violence under section 609.713 of the state statutes. This law criminalizes various forms of threatening behavior, including threats of violent crimes intended to terrorize or disrupt, communications about explosives meant to terrorize, and the menacing display of replica firearms or BB guns.
Here is the text of the statute:
609.713 THREATS OF VIOLENCE.
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.
To obtain a conviction for Threats of Violence under Minnesota Statute § 609.713, the prosecution must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt, which differ depending on the subdivision charged. Each subdivision targets distinct types of threatening conduct and requires proof of particular actions and mental states. A failure by the prosecution to establish any one of the necessary elements for the specific offense alleged will prevent a lawful conviction. Therefore, a clear understanding of these required components is essential for assessing the validity of the charges and formulating an effective defense against them.
A conviction for Threats of Violence under Minnesota Statute § 609.713 can result in significant penalties, including potential imprisonment, substantial fines, and a lasting criminal record. The severity of the penalties varies depending on the specific subdivision violated, reflecting the different types of threats addressed by the law. Understanding these potential consequences is essential for anyone facing such charges, as it highlights the seriousness of the offense.
This offense involves threatening a crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize or cause disruption/evacuation, or in reckless disregard of those risks.
This offense involves communicating about the presence of explosives or incendiary devices with the purpose to terrorize or in reckless disregard of that risk.
This offense involves displaying a replica firearm or BB gun in a threatening manner, causing/attempting terror or acting in reckless disregard of causing terror.
The crime of Threats of Violence under Minnesota Statute § 609.713 covers a spectrum of intimidating behaviors, from explicit verbal threats of serious harm to communications about non-existent bombs intended to cause panic, to brandishing realistic-looking toy guns. The core of the offense lies in the communication or action and its intended or likely effect of causing fear, disruption, or inconvenience, linked to violence, explosives, or simulated weapons. It’s distinct from actually carrying out the threatened act; the threat itself is the crime when coupled with the required intent or recklessness.
Understanding this law requires recognizing the different thresholds and elements for each subdivision. Subdivision 1 requires a threat of a specific “crime of violence” linked to terror or disruption. Subdivision 2 focuses narrowly on communications about explosives intended to terrorize. Subdivision 3 deals specifically with the menacing use of replica firearms or BB guns. Seeing how these apply in various situations helps clarify the boundaries between heated arguments or poor judgment and criminal threatening behavior under Minnesota law. The context, the specific words used or actions taken, and the defendant’s provable state of mind are all critical factors.
During a tense road rage incident after a near-collision, one driver gets out of their car, approaches the other driver’s window, pounds on the glass, and yells, “I know where you live, I’m going to come back and burn your house down with you inside!” The threatened act (arson with potential for homicide) constitutes a “crime of violence.”
This scenario likely fits Threats of Violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1. The driver directly threatened a specific crime of violence (arson, potentially homicide). The prosecution would need to prove the threat was made with the purpose to terrorize the other driver, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror. Given the aggressive context and the nature of the threat, arguing intent to terrorize seems plausible. This could lead to a felony charge carrying up to five years imprisonment.
A student wanting to get out of an exam calls the school office from a payphone, disguising their voice, and states, “There is a bomb in the gymnasium set to go off at noon.” The school initiates evacuation procedures and calls law enforcement. No bomb is found.
This falls squarely under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 2. The student communicated to another (the school office) that an explosive device was present at a named location (the gymnasium). Whether the bomb was real is irrelevant. The prosecution must prove the communication was made with the purpose to terrorize or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror. Given the likely outcome of panic and evacuation, proving at least reckless disregard seems probable, potentially supporting a felony charge with up to three years imprisonment. The purpose might also have been to cause evacuation/disruption (relevant to Subd. 1, but Subd. 2 fits more precisely for bomb threats).
Two neighbors are having a loud argument over a property line dispute. One neighbor goes inside, retrieves a realistic-looking replica pistol (that cannot fire projectiles), returns, and points it menacingly at the other neighbor while shouting obscenities. The neighbor being threatened feels extreme fear, believing the gun is real.
This scenario likely constitutes Threats of Violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 3. The individual displayed/employed a replica firearm in a threatening manner (pointing it during an argument). The action caused terror in the other person. Alternatively, the prosecution could argue the person acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror by brandishing what appeared to be a real weapon in a heated confrontation. This would support a gross misdemeanor charge carrying up to one year and one day in jail.
After a public dispute with a local official, an individual posts on social media: “People like [Official’s Name] need to be taught a lesson they won’t forget. Maybe someone should pay them a visit and rearrange their face.” The post includes a picture of brass knuckles. Assault causing substantial bodily harm is a “crime of violence.”
This could potentially be charged under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 as an indirect threat. The statement implies physical violence (assault – a crime of violence) against the official. The prosecution would need to argue this communication constitutes a threat made with the purpose to terrorize the official (or others seeing the post) or in reckless disregard of that risk. Whether online statements rise to the level of a “true threat” versus protected speech is often a complex legal issue depending heavily on context, but the explicit nature and accompanying image strengthen the case for it being a threat intended or likely to cause terror.
An accusation of making Threats of Violence under Minnesota Statute § 609.713 can arise from misunderstandings, heated moments, or actions taken out of context. While the law aims to protect people from fear and disruption caused by threats, not every angry statement or display constitutes a criminal offense. The prosecution must prove each specific element of the charged subdivision beyond a reasonable doubt, including the defendant’s mental state (purpose or recklessness). A criminal defense attorney plays a critical role in scrutinizing the allegations, evaluating the evidence, and identifying potential defenses to challenge the state’s case.
Successfully defending against these charges often involves demonstrating that the alleged conduct does not meet the strict legal requirements of the statute. This might involve arguing the statement wasn’t a true threat, the defendant lacked the required criminal intent or recklessness, the threatened act wasn’t a “crime of violence,” the item displayed wasn’t a replica firearm used threateningly, or constitutional rights like free speech were implicated. Exploring these defenses is crucial for protecting the accused’s rights and seeking a favorable outcome, such as dismissal, acquittal, or reduced charges.
A primary defense, particularly for Subdivision 1, is arguing that the communication did not constitute a “true threat” as legally defined. Not all alarming or offensive language qualifies.
Many charges under § 609.713 hinge on proving the defendant acted with a specific purpose (to terrorize, evacuate, disrupt) or with reckless disregard of the risk. Challenging this mental element is key.
For charges under Subdivision 1, the threat must be to commit a specific type of crime – a “crime of violence” as defined by reference to § 609.1095.
Charges under Subdivision 3 have specific requirements regarding the item displayed and the manner of display.
Technically, “Threats of Violence” is the title of the entire statute § 609.713. Subdivision 1 specifically deals with threatening a “crime of violence” with the purpose to terrorize (or cause evacuation/disruption, or reckless disregard). This specific part (Subd. 1) is often what people informally refer to as “Terroristic Threats,” although the statute uses the phrase “Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.” Subdivisions 2 and 3 cover different specific threats (explosives communications, replica firearms).
The statute refers to the definition in Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 1(d). This list includes numerous Minnesota felony offenses such as murder, manslaughter, assault (1st-3rd degree), kidnapping, false imprisonment, criminal sexual conduct (1st-4th degree), robbery, arson (1st-3rd degree), burglary (1st degree), drive-by shooting, and others explicitly involving violence or its serious potential.
Yes. Subdivision 1 covers threats made “directly or indirectly.” Threats communicated electronically via social media, email, text message, or other online platforms can absolutely form the basis for charges if they meet the other elements (threat of a crime of violence + purpose/recklessness). Similarly, Subdivision 2 covers electronic communications about explosives.
The crime under § 609.713 is making the threat itself with the required mental state (purpose to terrorize/disrupt or reckless disregard). Whether you actually intended to carry out the threatened act is irrelevant to guilt under this statute. The focus is on the impact and intent behind the communication or display.
Generally, merely yelling, swearing, or being verbally abusive, while potentially constituting disorderly conduct, does not automatically rise to the level of Threats of Violence under § 609.713. The communication must specifically threaten a “crime of violence” (Subd. 1), communicate about explosives (Subd. 2), or involve the threatening display of a replica firearm (Subd. 3), coupled with the required intent or recklessness.
“Purpose to terrorize” means it was the defendant’s conscious objective or goal to cause extreme fear in another person. “Reckless disregard” means the defendant was aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their actions would cause terror (or evacuation/inconvenience for Subd. 1) and consciously ignored that risk. Recklessness is a lower mental state threshold to prove than specific purpose.
For Subdivision 1 and 2, the focus is on the defendant’s purpose or reckless disregard, not necessarily the victim’s subjective reaction, although the victim’s reaction can be evidence of the threat’s nature. For Subdivision 3 (Replica Firearm), the state must prove the defendant caused or attempted to cause terror, or acted in reckless disregard of the risk. So, the victim’s reaction (or lack thereof) can be more directly relevant under Subd. 3.
As defined in Subdivision 3(b), it’s an object that looks reasonably like a real firearm (pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.) but is not legally defined as a dangerous weapon. This includes realistic toy guns, facsimiles, and blank-firing guns. It’s distinguished from actual firearms.
Yes. Subdivision 3 explicitly includes both replica firearms and BB guns (devices firing shots .18 inch or less) if they are displayed, exhibited, brandished, or employed in a threatening manner with the required link to causing terror or reckless disregard thereof.
No. Subdivision 1 (Threaten Crime of Violence) and Subdivision 2 (Communicate About Explosives) are felonies. Subdivision 3 (Display Replica Firearm) is classified as a Gross Misdemeanor, a less serious category than a felony but more serious than a standard misdemeanor.
Conditional threats can still be illegal under § 609.713 if the threatened action (Y) is a crime of violence and the threat is made with the purpose to terrorize or in reckless disregard. However, the conditional nature might be relevant to arguing whether it was a “true threat” or lacked the requisite intent, depending on the full context.
Voluntary intoxication is generally not a complete defense. However, if intoxication was so severe that it prevented the defendant from forming the required specific purpose (e.g., purpose to terrorize), it might be relevant to negating that mental element. It’s less likely to negate the “reckless disregard” standard. This is a complex area requiring careful legal analysis.
There are federal laws that also criminalize certain types of threats, particularly those made against federal officials, threats transmitted across state lines via interstate communications, or threats related to terrorism or aviation. Conduct violating Minn. Stat. § 609.713 could potentially also violate federal law, leading to possible prosecution in either state or federal court.
For the felony offenses under Subdivision 1 and Subdivision 2, the general statute of limitations in Minnesota is three years from the date of the offense. For the gross misdemeanor offense under Subdivision 3, the statute of limitations is also generally three years.
Yes. Through negotiation with the prosecutor, an attorney may be able to get charges dismissed (if evidence is weak or rights were violated) or reduced to a less serious offense (e.g., disorderly conduct) depending on the facts, the defendant’s history, and the strength of potential defenses.
A conviction for Threats of Violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, whether a felony (Subd. 1 or 2) or a gross misdemeanor (Subd. 3), can have significant and lasting negative consequences on an individual’s life. Beyond the immediate penalties of potential jail time and fines, the conviction creates a permanent criminal record that can erect barriers in employment, housing, education, and other areas, impacting opportunities and reputation long-term.
Any conviction under this statute results in a criminal record accessible through background checks. Employers, landlords, licensing boards, and educational institutions routinely conduct these checks. A record showing a conviction for making threats, especially involving violence or simulated weapons, raises serious red flags about judgment, temperament, and potential risk. This can lead to automatic disqualification from jobs, housing denials, and rejection from academic programs, regardless of the time passed or rehabilitation efforts. Explaining such a conviction can be difficult and often insufficient to overcome the negative perception.
Finding and keeping employment can become significantly harder with a Threats of Violence conviction. Many employers are unwilling to hire individuals perceived as potentially violent or unstable. For professions requiring state licenses (teaching, healthcare, childcare, security, law, finance, etc.), a conviction, particularly a felony, can be grounds for license denial or revocation. Even a gross misdemeanor can pose problems, especially for jobs involving interaction with the public, positions of trust, or roles requiring level-headedness under pressure. Disclosure requirements on applications can also create dilemmas.
A felony conviction under Subdivision 1 or 2 results in the loss of firearm rights under both Minnesota and federal law. This prohibition is typically lifelong unless rights are formally restored through specific legal processes (which can be difficult). Even a gross misdemeanor conviction under Subdivision 3, while not automatically triggering a lifetime ban like a felony, could potentially impact firearm rights under certain circumstances or interpretations, particularly if deemed a “crime of violence” in other contexts or if specific conditions are imposed by the court. Anyone convicted under this statute should seek legal clarification regarding their firearm status.
Landlords often deny rental applications based on criminal records involving threats or violence, making it difficult to secure stable housing. Educational institutions may deny admission or scholarships. Beyond these tangible barriers, there’s a social stigma associated with threat convictions. It can damage personal relationships, affect community standing, and lead to being viewed with suspicion or fear. This stigma can be isolating and emotionally taxing, impacting mental well-being and social integration long after the legal case is closed.
Threats of Violence cases under § 609.713 often turn on the specific context in which words were spoken or actions taken, and the defendant’s subjective intent or recklessness at that moment. Statements made in anger, jest, frustration, or under the influence might be interpreted very differently than calculated threats. An experienced criminal defense attorney meticulously investigates the surrounding circumstances, interviews witnesses, examines electronic communications in full, and analyzes the relationship between the parties involved. They work to present the context in a way that challenges the prosecution’s narrative about intent, arguing perhaps that there was no genuine purpose to terrorize or that the defendant did not consciously disregard a substantial risk, aiming to show the mental state required by the statute was not present.
When threats are communicated verbally or electronically, especially in public forums or concerning public issues, First Amendment free speech protections become relevant. There is a crucial legal distinction between constitutionally protected (though perhaps offensive or alarming) speech and unprotected “true threats.” An attorney knowledgeable in this area can analyze whether the communication falls under protected categories like hyperbole, political commentary, or expressions of frustration, rather than a serious expression of intent to commit violence that the law prohibits. They can file motions arguing the speech is protected and cannot form the basis for a criminal charge, requiring the court to carefully weigh free speech rights against public safety concerns based on established legal standards.
Each subdivision of § 609.713 has specific requirements regarding the nature of the threat or item involved. A defense attorney carefully examines whether the prosecution’s evidence meets these precise definitions. For Subdivision 1, they will scrutinize whether the threatened act legally qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the referenced statute (§ 609.1095). If not, the charge fails. For Subdivision 3, they will challenge whether the item displayed was truly a “replica firearm” or “BB gun” as defined, and whether it was used in a legally “threatening manner.” This involves applying the specific statutory language to the facts and potentially using expert testimony if needed (e.g., regarding firearm classification).
Given the potential for felony convictions and significant jail time, skillful negotiation is often crucial. An attorney can identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case (e.g., lack of intent evidence, questionable threat interpretation) and leverage them to negotiate for a dismissal or a plea to a less serious offense, such as disorderly conduct, which may have significantly lesser long-term consequences. Throughout the process, the attorney ensures the defendant’s constitutional rights are protected – challenging illegal searches or interrogations, advising the client against self-incrimination, and ensuring a fair process. They guide the client through the complexities of the legal system, explaining options and potential outcomes to allow for informed decisions.
