Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 451 N.W.2d 55.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Crystal Lynn Senart Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Crystal Lynn Senart Minn. Ct. App. 2025
It is true that the threats-of-violence statute is not intended to “authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The threats-of-violence statute does not apply to “the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger, which lacks the intent to terrorize.” d 55, 63 (Minn. App. 1990) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[I]t is not the purpose of the statute to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of [threat] which expresses transitory anger.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
17, 2009); (noting that transitory anger “lacks the intent to terrorize”), rev denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The statute is not me ant “to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger which lacks the intent to terrorize.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Much of the caselaw refers to “terroristic threats” instead of “threats of violence.” 6 Jones, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Th ough that terror is not an element of threats of violence, it is “circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of intent.” Sykes v. State , review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998); see also State v. Jones , (affirming sufficiency of circumstantial evid ence based, in part, on the f act that the victim felt threatened), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The threats -of-violence statute is not intended “to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger [but] which lacks the intent to terrorize.” State v. Jones , , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota’s threats-of-violence statute is not intended “to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger [but] which lacks the intent to terrorize.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
63 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that evidence was sufficient 5 to support defendant’s terroristic threats conviction because “the evidence does not support the theory that [defendant] was expressing transitory anger without any purpose to terrorize”); (concluding that, based on evidence presented at trial, “it would be possible for a reasonable jury to conclude that [defendant] was not expressing ‘transitory anger’”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying sufficiency analysis and rejecting defendant’s argument that his conduct was merely the result of transitory anger); (applying sufficiency analysis and concluding that “it would be possible for a reasonable jury to conclude that [the defendant] was not expressing ‘transitory anger’ when he threatened [two individuals], but that when doing so he had the requisite intent to terrorize necessary to support his
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The terroristic-threats statute is not intended “to authorize grave sanctions against the kind of verbal threat which expresses transitory anger which lacks the intent to terrorize.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-62 (Minn.App.1990) (-59 (Minn.1977)).