Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schweppe, 237 N.W.2d 609.

182 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 609, 613 (Minn. 1975).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the statute does not define “threat,” the supreme court has interpreted “threat” to mean “a 6 declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawfu l act.” State v. Schweppe
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1 .2 “Terrorize” is defi ned as causing “extreme fear by the use of violence or threats.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This element requires the state to establish that the defendant made a threatening statement with either an intent to terrorize, (“Purpose .
Katherine Corrine McClain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A threat is a declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.”
A19-1230 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 609, 614 (Minn. 19 75).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1; (describing three elements).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the statute does not define “threat,” the supreme court has interpreted threat to mean “a declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 609, 614 (Minn. 1975).
Elwin Louis Klimek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although the statute does not define “threat,” the supreme court has interpreted it to mean “a declaration of an intention to injure another or his property by some unlawful act.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
She correctly notes that “whether a given statement is a threat turns on whether the communication in its context would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” State v. Schweppe , 306 Minn. 395, 399, d 609, 613 (1975); see Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, (stating that victim’s reaction to t hreat “was circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of intent”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 858 (citing State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (explaining that words must be considered within the context in which they were used to assess w hether they were threatening)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In this context, purpose “means aim, objective, or intention,” and “[t]errorize means to cause extreme fear by use of violence or threats.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A statement is a threat only if “the communication in its context” would reasonably “create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (quotation omitted).
Founders Insurance Company v. James Yates 888 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2016
Founders Insurance Company v. James Yates 888 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2016
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401 n.3, n.3 (1975) (declining to decide an issue not briefed or argued by the parties).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 his property by some unlawful act.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (explaining that 8 In his pro se brief, Hall argues that his voicemails were protected under the First Amendment’s right to petition the government, which we address in Section II, supra.
State of Minnesota v. Bayyinah Jameelah Shelton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bayyinah Jameelah Shelton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Terrorize means to cause extreme fear by use of violence or threats.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, (stating that a victim’s 8 reaction is relevant to the defendant’s intent).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The purpose underlying the Spreigl notice procedure is to ensure that a defendant is not forced to defend himself against unexpected testimony of prior offenses.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … 877 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2016
LaVonne Pfeil, Individually and as Trustee for Heirs of Henry Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of … 877 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2016
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , 401 n. 3, , 614 n. 3 (1975) (declining to decide an issue not briefed or argued by the parties).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 401, (stating that a victim’s reaction is circumstantial evidence relevant to the defendant’s intent in making the threatening statement).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 402, see also Ness, d at 687 (stating that although motive is not an element of most crimes, the state is usually entitled to present motive evidence to help explain the reason for an act).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he question of whether a given statement is a threat turns on whether the communication in its context would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that 7 its originator will act according to its tenor.” State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 399, (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A threat to commit a crime of violence “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