A Threat Must be to Commit a Future Crime of Violence.

State v. Brevik, Minn.Ct.App., 3/31/2009.  Unpublished.  Mr. Brevik and his wife argued over water damage to the basement of their house.  During the argument, Mr. Brevik apparently mooned the misses, then left the house.  Mrs. Brevik found him sitting in Mr. Brevik's van.  They argued some more;  Mr. Brevik threw Mrs. Brevik's wallet out of the van; she called him a jerk.  Mr. Brevik drove the van in the general direction of his wife, stopped five feet from her, backed the van away.  He repeated this movement a short while later - this time edging to within two feet of his wife and (now) his son - after Mrs. Brevik called her husband a goddamned asshole.  Mr. Brevik then left.  Hours later, upon his return, Mr. Brevik went to the couple's bedroom and sulked.  Thinking that enough is enough, Mrs. Brevik called the police.  The state charged Mr. Brevik with assault and terroristic threats.  The jury convicted him of both.

The appeal issue is sufficiency of the evidence.  For the assault, there was ample evidence.  Not so much for the terroristic threats. Mr. Brevik never verbally threatened Mrs. Brevik so his actions must suffice, if at all, to prove that charge. 

“A threat is a declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, 237 N.W.2d 609, 613 (1975). A threat may be communicated by words or acts, but it “must be to commit a future crime of violence.” State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn. 1996).

The appellate court concluded that Mr. Brevik's driving did not convey a "clear message" that he was capable of coming back and doing something more serious.  As such:

the evidence of Brevik‟s conduct is insufficient to permit a reasonable inference as to what future “crime of violence” would be deterred by also convicting Brevik of terroristic threats.

The appellate court reverses the terroristic threats conviction.