What Constitutes Threats Of Violence For A Criminal Charge?

Few charges catch people more off guard than threats of violence, because they often arise from a single sentence said in anger, not from any actual plan to hurt anyone. Understanding exactly what the State has to prove, and what it does not, is the key to seeing how defensible these cases can be.

What is “threats of violence” under Minnesota law?

Threats of violence is a felony offense under Minn. Stat. § 609.713. Minnesota renamed the crime from “terroristic threats” in 2015, but the law is the same: it punishes threatening to commit a crime of violence in a way meant to terrorize, or made in reckless disregard of that risk.

It is a serious charge with consequences far beyond the courtroom, including a felony record, loss of firearm rights, and barriers to jobs, housing, and professional licenses. Yet many of these cases involve otherwise law-abiding people who said something they should not have in a heated moment.

What are the elements of a threats-of-violence charge?

To convict you under subdivision 1, the State must prove three things: that you made a threat, that the threat was to commit a crime of violence, and that you did so with the purpose to terrorize another person or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror.

A “threat” is a declaration of intent to injure another person or their property by an unlawful act. Whether a statement actually is a threat depends on context. As Minnesota courts have put it, the question is whether the communication, in its context, would reasonably cause apprehension that the speaker will act on it. The same four words can be a felony in one setting and meaningless venting in another.

Do you have to mean it?

No, and that surprises people. Because the statute includes a “reckless disregard” option, you can be charged even if you never intended to scare anyone, as long as you consciously disregarded a substantial risk that your words would cause extreme fear. You also do not have to intend to actually carry out the threat.

The classic example: someone being kicked out of a bar shouts “I’ll burn this place down!” on the way out. They may have had no plan and no real intent to terrify anyone, but the reckless-disregard prong can still apply. That is exactly why context and intent are the battleground in these cases.

What counts as a threat of violence, and what doesn’t?

Because context controls, similar-sounding statements can land very differently. The table below shows how.

Statement or conduct	Likely chargeable?
Texting “I’m going to kill you” in a way that causes genuine fear	Yes
Shouting “I’ll burn this place down!” while being removed	Possibly (reckless-disregard prong)
A false bomb or explosive threat to a building	Yes (subdivision 2)
Brandishing a replica or BB gun to scare someone	Yes (subdivision 3)
Venting “I could kill him” to a friend, not aimed at the target	Often not
Obvious sarcasm or a joke among friends	Usually not (not a true threat)
Vague, conditional, or political hyperbole	Usually not

What are the penalties for threats of violence in Minnesota?

The penalty depends on which part of the statute applies. The main charge under subdivision 1 is a felony.

Offense	Statute	Maximum penalty
Threatening to commit a crime of violence	§ 609.713, subd. 1	Felony — up to 5 years and/or a $10,000 fine
False bomb or explosive threat	§ 609.713, subd. 2	Up to 3 years and/or a $3,000 fine
Brandishing a replica firearm or BB gun to terrify	§ 609.713, subd. 3	Up to 366 days and/or a $3,000 fine

Beyond the sentence, a felony conviction brings lasting collateral consequences. Because threats charges often arise alongside domestic disputes, they can also trigger no-contact orders and firearm restrictions. If your situation involves a partner or family member, see our domestic assault defense page, and for how charge levels work, our guide to gross misdemeanors in Minnesota.

Is a threat free speech? The “true threat” rule

The First Amendment protects a lot of ugly, angry, and hyperbolic speech, but it does not protect “true threats.” In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that to convict someone of making a threat, the State must show the speaker was at least reckless about the threatening nature of the statement.

Minnesota’s statute already requires purpose to terrorize or reckless disregard, so it lines up with that standard. The practical effect is that genuinely careless, joking, or clearly non-serious statements are much harder to prosecute, and the prosecution’s proof of your mental state is often where a case is won or lost.

What are the defenses to a threats-of-violence charge?

These cases are more defensible than they first appear, precisely because so much turns on context and intent. Common defenses include:

• It was not a true threat — the statement was a joke, hyperbole, frustration, or political speech a reasonable listener would not take as a real threat.
• No purpose to terrorize and no recklessness — the State cannot prove the required mental state.
• It was not a threat to commit a crime of violence — the words do not meet the legal definition.
• Context defeats apprehension — the surrounding circumstances show no reasonable fear that you would act.
• Intoxication — voluntary intoxication can negate the “purpose to terrorize” intent, though Minnesota courts have held it does not apply to the reckless-disregard prong.
• Wrong person — you are not the one who made the statement, common with online or anonymous messages.

Which defense fits depends entirely on the facts, the exact words, and the context. For a broader overview, see our guide to the types of criminal defenses and our criminal defense practice.

FAQs

What constitutes a threat of violence in Minnesota?

A threat, made directly or indirectly, to commit a crime of violence, with the purpose to terrorize another person or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror. It can be spoken, written, or electronic, and it does not require intent to actually carry it out.

Is threats of violence a felony in Minnesota?

Yes. The main offense under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1, is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. False bomb threats and brandishing a replica firearm to terrify carry lower maximums.

Do I have to intend to carry out the threat to be charged?

No. The statute does not require intent to follow through, and it includes a reckless-disregard option, so you can be charged even without a specific intent to scare anyone if you consciously disregarded the risk of causing terror.

Can a joke or angry comment be charged as a threat?

It can be charged, but context is a strong defense. Genuinely joking, hyperbolic, or non-serious statements that a reasonable listener would not take as real threats are often not “true threats” and may not be provable.

Can you be charged for a threat sent by text or social media?

Yes. Threats of violence applies to spoken, written, and electronic statements, including texts, emails, and social media messages, as long as the legal elements are met.