State v. Smith, Minn.Ct.App., 12/24/2012. Mr. Smith and his buddy, Mr. Hicks, Jr., gave their cousins, D.W. and U.H. a ride back to D.W.’s apartment. Mr. Smith began to argue with D.W. about money as they walked into D.W.’s apartment. Inside, they continued to argue. Mr. Hicks kicked D.W. in the leg, then waived a pocket knife in front of D.W. and demanded money. D.W. called 911; Mr. Smith knocked the phone out of his hand but D.W. fetched the phone and resumed his 911 call. Mr. Smith gave up and that point and left. Among other charges, the state charged Mr. Smith with terroristic threats.
The “threat” in “terroristic threats” must be to commit a future crime of violence which would terrorize a victim. State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn. 1996). So, Mr. Smith said that his “threat” was to commit an immediate act of violence. The appellate court disagreed; the statute covers both the act of waiving the knife at D.W. while demanding money as well as his future assault of D.W. Mr. Smith also argued that his waiving of the knife was only “transitory anger,” which is not proscribed by the terroristic threats statute. The court summarily dismisses this claim without any real analysis.
The court did say that admitting evidence that Mr. Smith had a box cutter two days later when police arrested him was a mistake, but it was harmless error.
No comments:
Post a Comment