Charged with Threats of Violence? A Minnesota Lawyer Explains Minn. Stat. § 609.713 and Your Defense.
You’re reading this because your world has been turned upside down. A moment of anger, a heated argument, a poorly worded message, or even a complete misunderstanding has led to a criminal charge: Threats of Violence. Suddenly, you’re facing a legal system that feels overwhelming and unforgiving. The words on the charging document—”intent to terrorize,” “reckless disregard”—don’t sound like you at all. You feel judged, scared, and uncertain about what comes next. Will you go to jail? Will you lose your job? How can you protect your reputation and your future from a single allegation?
You need to know that you are not powerless in this situation. The prosecution has a story they want to tell, but it’s not the only story. I understand how quickly a situation can spiral out of control and how easily words can be twisted and used against you. For years, I have defended people just like you across the entire state of Minnesota—from the busy courtrooms of Minneapolis and St. Paul to the local courthouses in Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud, and throughout Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, and St. Louis Counties. I have seen firsthand how these charges arise and, more importantly, how to fight them. You have rights, and you have defenses. The most critical step you can take right now is to understand the law you’re up against and begin building a strategy to challenge the state’s case. You don’t have to face this alone.
More Than Just Words: What “Threats of Violence” Actually Means in Minnesota
In Minnesota, a “threats of violence” charge isn’t about just any angry or offensive statement. The law targets specific types of communication intended to cause fear or serious disruption. To be convicted, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you threatened to commit a “crime of violence.” This could be a direct statement, like saying you’re going to physically harm someone, or an indirect one, such as implying a violent act will happen. The core of this offense often hinges on your state of mind: Did you intend to terrorize someone? Or did you act with a reckless disregard for the risk of causing that terror?
These charges often arise from situations fueled by intense emotion—a bitter dispute with a neighbor in Bloomington, a heated exchange on social media in Maple Grove, or an argument that gets out of hand in a Plymouth home. The state doesn’t just look at the words you used; they examine the entire context. Facing a threats of violence accusation in Minnesota means the prosecutor believes your words crossed a line from simple anger into criminal intimidation. Understanding this distinction is the first step in building your defense.
Minnesota Law on Threats of Violence — Straight from the Statute
The specific law that governs this offense is Minnesota Statute § 609.713. It’s crucial to see the exact language the state will use to try and convict you. The statute is divided into different sections, each covering a specific type of threat.
Here is the text of the law:
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… “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… or any other firearm.
Breaking Down the Legal Elements of Threats of Violence in Minnesota
For the prosecution to secure a conviction, they can’t just point to your words and declare them a crime. They must meticulously prove each component—or “element”—of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If even one element is missing or unproven, the entire case against you can fall apart. This is often where a strong defense begins.
- The Threat: The foundation of the state’s case is the alleged threat itself. This must be a communication, made either directly or indirectly, to commit a future “crime of violence.” This isn’t just about offensive language; it has to be a statement that suggests a specific violent crime will occur (like assault, robbery, or worse). The threat doesn’t have to be detailed. An indirect or vague statement can still qualify if the context makes the violent intention clear to the listener. The key question is whether a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would interpret the communication as a serious expression of an intent to commit a violent act.
- The Intent (Or Reckless Disregard): This is the mental state element, and it is absolutely critical. The prosecutor must prove one of two things. First, they can show you acted with the specific purpose to terrorize someone. This means your goal was to instill extreme fear. Alternatively, they can argue you acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing that terror. This is a lower standard, suggesting you didn’t necessarily mean to terrorize anyone but knew your actions created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of doing so and went ahead anyway. Challenging this element is a cornerstone of many successful defenses.
- The Result (Terror or Inconvenience): The threat must be made with the intent to cause terror in a specific person or group, or to cause a major disruption, like the evacuation of a building or public transit. For the “intent to terrorize” part, “terror” means more than just being scared; it implies an intense, paralyzing fear. For the “public inconvenience” part, the law is aimed at bomb threats and similar statements that cause widespread panic and force public services to respond. Proving you actually caused this level of fear or disruption, or that it was your specific goal, can be very difficult for the prosecution.
Penalties for a Threats of Violence Conviction in Minnesota Can Be Severe
A conviction for Threats of Violence is not a minor offense. Minnesota law treats these crimes seriously, and the penalties you face depend on which part of the statute you are charged under. The consequences go far beyond fines and potential jail time; a conviction creates a permanent criminal record that can affect you for the rest of your life. Understanding the “penalties for threats of violence in Minnesota” is essential to grasping the importance of a strong defense.
Felony Threats of Violence (Subdivision 1)
This is the most serious version of the offense. If you are convicted of threatening a crime of violence with the intent to terrorize or cause a major public disruption, you are facing a felony. The maximum sentence is up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
Felony Bomb Threat (Subdivision 2)
Communicating that an explosive or incendiary device is present, whether it is or not, with the intent to terrorize is also a felony. While the stakes are slightly lower than Subdivision 1, a conviction still carries a maximum sentence of up to three years in prison and/or a fine of up to $3,000.
Gross Misdemeanor Replica Firearm Threat (Subdivision 3)
If you are accused of brandishing a replica firearm or BB gun in a threatening manner to cause terror, you will be charged with a gross misdemeanor. The “Minnesota sentencing for threats of violence” under this subdivision includes up to one year and one day in jail and/or a fine of up to $3,000.
What Threats of Violence Looks Like in Real Life — Common Scenarios in Minnesota
The sterile language of the law doesn’t always capture how these situations unfold. Threats of Violence charges can stem from everyday conflicts that escalate in a moment of poor judgment. You might recognize your own situation in one of these common examples.
These scenarios illustrate how easily a person can find themselves facing these serious charges. The line between venting frustration and committing a crime can be dangerously thin, and context is everything.
The Heated Social Media Argument
A political debate on a Minneapolis community Facebook page gets personal. You get into a back-and-forth with another user. In a moment of extreme frustration, you post a comment like, “People like you should watch their backs. You’ll get what’s coming to you.” The other person reports the comment to the police, claiming they feel terrorized. The prosecutor argues that your words, in the context of the heated argument, constitute an indirect threat of violence made in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror.
The Contentious Divorce
During a bitter child custody exchange in a Rochester parking lot, your ex-spouse says something that pushes you over the edge. You yell, “If you ever try to keep my kids from me again, you’ll regret it. I’ll make sure you can’t show your face in this town again.” Your ex-spouse’s new partner records the exchange on their phone. They go to the police, stating your tone and words made them fear for their safety. You are charged under Subdivision 1.
The Bar Fight That Didn’t Happen
After a few drinks at a bar in downtown Duluth, you get into a verbal spat with another patron who you believe was harassing your friend. As the bouncer is separating you, you shout at the other person, “You better not be here when I get back!” Although you had no intention of returning or doing anything, the other patron tells the police they felt threatened with an imminent assault. This could lead to a charge based on the implied threat of future violence.
The Misunderstood Teenager with a BB Gun
A teenager in a Brooklyn Park suburb is playing in their backyard with a realistic-looking BB gun. A neighbor, seeing the teen from their window, misinterprets the situation. The teen points the BB gun at a tree, but the neighbor believes they were being threatened. The neighbor calls 911, reporting a person with a gun making threats. The teen could be charged under Subdivision 3 for brandishing a replica firearm in a way that recklessly caused terror in another.
Legal Defenses That Might Work Against Your Threats of Violence Charge
An accusation is not a conviction. The prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving every element of their case against you. My job is to hold them to that burden and expose the weaknesses in their argument. A successful defense is built by scrutinizing the evidence, challenging the state’s interpretation, and presenting a compelling counter-narrative. Many viable defenses exist, and the right strategy depends on the unique facts of your case.
Often, the core of the defense is demonstrating that your words or actions, when viewed in their proper context, do not meet the high legal standard for a criminal threat. We can argue that your intent was misunderstood, that your words were conditional or ambiguous, or that the alleged victim’s fear was not reasonable under the circumstances. The goal is to dismantle the prosecution’s case, element by element.
Defense Strategy: It Wasn’t a “True Threat”
The First Amendment protects a significant amount of speech, even if it’s offensive or alarming. The law distinguishes between a “true threat” and things like political hyperbole, angry venting, or statements made in jest. A true threat is a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. If your statement doesn’t rise to this level, it is protected speech, not a crime.
- Political Hyperbole: In the heat of a political rally in St. Paul or during an online debate, you might say something like, “We need to fight back against these politicians!” This is generally considered protected speech, not a direct threat to assault a specific person.
- Venting or Blowing Off Steam: Yelling “I’m so mad I could kill him!” after a frustrating call with a customer service agent is a common expression of anger. A reasonable person would not interpret this as a genuine plan to commit murder.
- Context is Key: We would examine the entire situation. Was there a history of violence between you and the alleged victim? Or was this an isolated outburst during a stressful event, like a traffic jam on I-94?
Defense Strategy: You Lacked the Criminal Intent
The prosecution must prove you acted with a specific purpose to terrorize or with reckless disregard for that risk. This is a subjective element, focusing on your state of mind. If we can show that you never intended to cause fear, or that you didn’t act recklessly, the state’s case crumbles. This is one of the most powerful “defenses to threats of violence in Minnesota.”
- Misinterpretation: Perhaps you have an abrasive sense of humor or a communication style that was taken the wrong way. We can present evidence of your character and past interactions to show that your intent was not malicious.
- Intoxication: While not a complete excuse, your level of intoxication could be relevant to whether you could form the specific “purpose to terrorize.” If you were heavily intoxicated, we might argue you were not capable of forming that specific criminal intent.
- No Reckless Disregard: To be reckless, you must have been aware of a serious risk and consciously disregarded it. If the situation was chaotic and you weren’t thinking clearly, we can argue your conduct wasn’t a conscious disregard of a known risk.
Defense Strategy: The Accusation is False or Motivated by Revenge
It’s an unfortunate reality that people can and do make false accusations, often motivated by anger, jealousy, or a desire for leverage in another legal dispute (like a divorce or custody battle). In these cases, the defense focuses on the credibility of the accuser.
- Motive to Lie: Does your accuser have a reason to want to see you in trouble? We would investigate their background, your shared history, and any ongoing conflicts to expose potential motives for fabricating the threat.
- Inconsistent Statements: We would meticulously compare the accuser’s statements to police, their testimony in court, and any other accounts they’ve given. Contradictions can destroy their credibility and create reasonable doubt.
- Lack of Corroborating Evidence: If it’s just your word against theirs, with no recordings, no witnesses, and no physical evidence, the prosecution will have a very difficult time proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense Strategy: The Threat Was Conditional or Ambiguous
A statement that is vague or requires some future event to occur may not legally qualify as a threat of violence. The law requires a threat to commit a crime of violence, and if your words were too ambiguous to be understood as such, or if they were conditioned on an unlikely event, this can be a strong defense.
- Conditional Language: Saying “If you ever touch my car again, I’ll be really upset” is different from “I’m going to assault you.” A statement like, “If I win the lottery, I’m going to hire someone to…” is so contingent on an unlikely event that it lacks imminence.
- Ambiguity: What did you actually mean? A statement like “You’re going to get what you deserve” is highly ambiguous. Does it mean karma? Does it mean social ostracization? Or does it mean physical violence? We would argue for an innocent interpretation of the ambiguous language.
Minnesota Threats of Violence FAQs — What You Need to Know Now
When you’re charged with a crime, you have dozens of questions running through your mind. Here are straightforward answers to some of the most common questions I hear from my clients.
Will I definitely go to jail for threats of violence in Minnesota?
Not necessarily. While jail or prison time is a possibility, especially for felony-level offenses, it is not a foregone conclusion. An effective defense can lead to reduced charges, a stay of imposition (where a felony is treated as a misdemeanor after probation), or even a full dismissal. Your prior criminal history, the specifics of the alleged threat, and the quality of your legal representation are all critical factors. For a first-time offense, alternatives like probation, anger management, or community service are often achievable outcomes.
Is it possible to get my threats of violence charge dismissed?
Yes, a dismissal is one of the best possible outcomes and one I always strive for. A case can be dismissed if we can show the prosecution that their evidence is too weak to win at trial, if we successfully argue that your constitutional rights were violated during the investigation, or if we negotiate a dismissal as part of a plea agreement to a lesser offense. Early intervention by an attorney is key to increasing the chances of a dismissal.
How can a lawyer help if it’s just my word against theirs?
This is a very common scenario. A lawyer’s role is to scrutinize the accuser’s story for inconsistencies, biases, and motives to lie. We can conduct our own investigation, find witnesses who can speak to your character or the accuser’s lack of credibility, and use cross-examination to poke holes in their testimony. A case built only on testimony is inherently vulnerable, and a skilled attorney knows how to exploit that weakness to create reasonable doubt.
What if I admit I said it? Do I still have a defense?
Absolutely. Admitting you said the words is not the same as admitting you committed a crime. The state still has to prove your intent. You may have said the words, but you can still argue you didn’t have the purpose to terrorize, that the words didn’t constitute a “true threat,” or that you were simply venting in anger. Your admission is just one piece of evidence, not the end of your case.
Do I need a lawyer for a threats of violence charge in Minneapolis?
Yes. The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and Minneapolis prosecutors take these charges very seriously. The court system is complex, and the prosecutors are experienced litigators. Facing them without a knowledgeable defense attorney puts you at a massive disadvantage. The same is true for St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth, or any other jurisdiction in Minnesota.
How long does a threats of violence charge stay on my record in Minnesota?
A criminal charge can be found on your record forever unless it is expunged. A conviction for threats of violence, especially a felony, will appear on background checks for employment, housing, and professional licenses. This makes fighting the charge from the outset critically important. Securing a dismissal or an outcome that allows for future expungement is essential to protecting your record.
Can I be charged for a threat I made online or in a text message?
Yes. The law covers threats made “directly or indirectly.” This includes threats made through electronic communications like text messages, emails, social media posts, and direct messages. In fact, these cases are often easier for prosecutors because they have a written record of the alleged threat.
What’s the difference between “intent to terrorize” and “reckless disregard”?
“Intent to terrorize” means it was your conscious goal to make someone feel extreme fear. “Reckless disregard” is a lower standard. It means you were aware of a substantial risk that your words would cause terror and you ignored that risk. Proving reckless disregard is often easier for the prosecution, so a key part of your defense might be to show you were not aware of any such risk.
I was just joking. Can I still be convicted?
It depends. The standard is whether a “reasonable person” would interpret your statement as a joke in that context. If your “joke” was about a bomb in an airport, it’s unlikely to be viewed as funny by law enforcement or a jury. However, if the context, your tone, and your relationship with the other person all suggest it was a joke, that can be a powerful defense.
What is a “crime of violence” in Minnesota?
Minnesota law has a specific list of offenses that qualify as “crimes of violence.” This includes common crimes like murder, assault, kidnapping, robbery, and criminal sexual conduct, among others. The threat you make must be to commit one of these underlying crimes. Threatening to sue someone or ruin their reputation is not a “threat of violence.”
Should I talk to the police if they want to question me?
No. You have the right to remain silent, and you should always exercise it. Police are trained to elicit incriminating statements. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Politely decline to answer any questions and state that you wish to speak with an attorney immediately. This is the single most important step you can take to protect yourself.
What if the other person wasn’t actually scared?
This can be a valid defense. The statute requires an intent to cause terror, which is a very high level of fear. If the alleged victim’s actions after the threat (e.g., they didn’t call the police for hours, they continued to communicate with you) suggest they weren’t truly terrorized, we can use that evidence to argue that an essential element of the crime is missing.
I was served with a restraining order (OFP or HRO). How does that affect my criminal case?
A restraining order (Order for Protection or Harassment Restraining Order) is a civil matter, but it is often connected to a criminal threats of violence charge. Violating the restraining order is a separate crime. The evidence and testimony from the restraining order hearing can also be used in your criminal case. It is vital to have a lawyer who can handle both matters strategically.
Can I still own a gun if I’m charged?
A charge alone might not prohibit you from possessing a firearm, but a condition of your release while the case is pending might. If you are convicted of a felony-level Threats of Violence offense, you will be permanently barred from possessing firearms under both state and federal law. This is one of the most significant “life after a threats of violence conviction in Minnesota” consequences.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for a case like this?
The cost varies depending on the complexity of the case (misdemeanor vs. felony), the stage of the proceedings, and whether the case goes to trial. I offer a flat-fee structure for most cases, so you will know the full cost of your legal defense upfront, with no surprises. The investment in a skilled private attorney is an investment in protecting your freedom, reputation, and future.
What a Threats of Violence Conviction Could Mean for the Rest of Your Life
The consequences of a conviction extend far beyond the sentence handed down by the judge. A criminal record, especially for a crime labeled as “violent,” creates a lasting stigma that can close doors and limit your opportunities for years to come. This is why fighting your charge so aggressively is not just about avoiding jail; it’s about protecting your entire future.
Your Right to Own a Firearm
As mentioned, a felony conviction for Threats of Violence results in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms and ammunition. This is not just about hunting or sport shooting; it’s the loss of a fundamental constitutional right. For many Minnesotans, this is a devastating and permanent consequence. Even a gross misdemeanor conviction could impact your permit to carry.
Your Career and Employment
Nearly every job application today asks if you have been convicted of a crime. A Threats of Violence conviction can be a major red flag for employers, particularly for positions that involve working with the public, handling stress, or holding a professional license. You may be automatically disqualified from jobs in healthcare, education, law enforcement, and many other fields. The “criminal record consequences for threats of violence” can effectively end a career.
Your Housing and Education
Landlords routinely run background checks on prospective tenants. A conviction can make it incredibly difficult to find safe, affordable housing, as many landlords will refuse to rent to someone with a violent crime on their record. Similarly, colleges and universities may deny admission or financial aid based on your criminal history. You could lose the chance to build a better life for yourself and your family.
Your Reputation and Personal Life
The damage to your personal relationships and reputation can be immense. Friends, family, and community members may view you differently. The label of being “violent” or “dangerous” can follow you, causing social isolation and emotional distress. In the digital age, a criminal record is easily accessible, creating a permanent shadow that is difficult to escape.
Why You Need a Tough, Experienced Minnesota Threats of Violence Attorney
When the full weight of the state is bearing down on you, you cannot afford to face it alone or with an overworked public defender who has dozens of other cases. You need a dedicated advocate in your corner. You need a private criminal defense attorney who will devote the time, resources, and strategic thinking necessary to protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.
The Advantage of Focused, Private Representation
As a private attorney, my focus is solely on you and your case. I don’t juggle an unmanageable caseload. I have the time to investigate every detail, to listen to your side of the story, and to build a defense tailored to your specific circumstances. I will be the one standing next to you in court, speaking on your behalf, and fighting for your interests from start to finish. You get personalized attention and a strategy designed for one purpose: to win.
The Power of Proactive Defense
The most critical window in a criminal case is often the very beginning. By taking swift action, I can often influence the charging decision itself, potentially convincing the prosecutor to file lesser charges or no charges at all. We can preserve crucial evidence, interview witnesses while their memories are fresh, and identify weaknesses in the state’s case before it ever gains momentum. Waiting is a mistake. A proactive defense is your best offense.
Navigating the Local Courts with Confidence
Every courthouse in Minnesota has its own way of doing things. The prosecutors in Hennepin County have different priorities than those in Ramsey or St. Louis County. The judges in rural Minnesota may view a case differently than those in downtown Minneapolis. I have experience in courtrooms across the state. I know the players, I understand the local procedures, and I know how to build a case that resonates with the specific prosecutor and judge handling your case. This local knowledge is an invaluable asset.
A Commitment to Achieving the Best Possible Outcome
My goal is always to achieve the best result for you. Sometimes that means negotiating a favorable plea deal that avoids a conviction and keeps you out of jail. Other times, it means taking your case to trial and fighting for a “not guilty” verdict. I will give you an honest assessment of your options and the risks and rewards of each path. Whatever we decide, you will have a tireless advocate who is prepared to challenge the evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. Your future is too important to leave to chance.