CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the terroristic threats statute, reckless disregard section, is not unconstitutional?

Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the threats of violence statute, reckless disregard section, §609.713, subd. 1, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Defendant argued that the reckless disregard section was unconstitutionally overbroad.  The Minnesota Supreme Court held that:  (1) a threat of violence is made in reckless disregard of the the risk of causing terror when the defendant makes the violent threat while consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the defendant’s words or actions will cause terror; (2) true threats , a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment, do not require specific intent to threaten a victim and can encompass violent communications that are made recklessly; Minnesota’s threats of violence statute punishes only true threats; and (3) Minnesota’s threats of violence statute is not substantially overbroad under the First Amendment.

State v. Mrozinski, A20-0231, Minnesota Supreme Court.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Recommended Posts