What “threats of violence” means in Minnesota
If you are facing a Minnesota threats of violence charge, or you are reading statute 609.713 and trying to make sense of it, here is what it means in plain terms, written the way we would explain it in a first meeting. Minnesota law makes it a crime to threaten to commit a crime of violence in order to terrorize someone, and it is a more serious charge than most people expect. You may know it by its old name: the law was formerly titled “terroristic threats” and was renamed in 2015, and many people still search for it that way. The conduct it covers has not changed, only the title.
The short version: under statute 609.713, threatening a crime of violence with the purpose of terrorizing someone, or in reckless disregard of that risk, is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. You do not have to carry out the threat, and in some cases you do not even have to intend to.
That last point is what surprises people most, so we want to slow down on the actual law.
The three ways you can be charged under 609.713
The statute describes three separate offenses, each with its own penalty. Here is how we break each one down.
1. Threatening a crime of violence (Subdivision 1)
This is the main charge. It applies when someone threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence, either with the purpose of terrorizing another person (or causing the evacuation of a building or serious public inconvenience), or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing that terror. The penalty is up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. Because the maximum is more than one year, this is a felony. What counts as a “crime of violence” is defined by a separate statute, section 609.1095, and it is a specific list, not anything a person might find frightening.
2. Communicating a bomb or explosive threat (Subdivision 2)
Telling someone that explosives or an incendiary device are present at a named place, in order to terrorize or in reckless disregard of that risk, is its own offense, whether or not anything is actually there. This is the “bomb threat” provision. It is punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine of up to $3,000, or both.
3. Displaying a replica firearm or BB gun (Subdivision 3)
Brandishing or displaying a replica firearm or a BB gun in a threatening manner, if it causes or is meant to cause terror in another person, or is done in reckless disregard of that risk, is a third, lesser offense. It carries up to one year and one day in prison, a fine of up to $3,000, or both.
What the prosecutor actually has to prove
For the main charge under Subdivision 1, the state has to prove two things, and the first thing we look at is whether it can actually prove both: first, that there was a threat to commit a crime of violence, and second, that you either meant to terrorize someone or acted in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing them. What the law actually says matters here, because both halves are contested in real cases.
The threat has to be a “true threat.” Minnesota courts recognize that words said in transitory anger, obvious hyperbole, or an idle remark that no reasonable person would take as a genuine threat are not the same as a real threat to commit violence. There is a line between saying something angry in a heated moment and communicating a genuine intent to instill fear, and a great deal of what we do in these cases lives on that line.
The “reckless disregard” wording is what lets the state charge someone who says they never meant to scare anyone, which is exactly why context, tone, and how the words were actually received matter so much.
Is threats of violence a felony in Minnesota?
Yes. The main offense under Subdivision 1 carries up to five years in prison, which makes it a felony. A felony conviction in Minnesota follows you: it can affect your right to own a firearm, your employment, your housing, and more. The two lesser offenses in the statute (the bomb-threat and replica-firearm provisions) carry shorter maximums, but the felony under Subdivision 1 is the most serious of the three and the one the statute leads with. One thing worth saying plainly: the five-year figure is the statutory maximum, not the typical result. Where a given case actually lands depends on the facts and a person’s record, and sorting that out early is part of what we do. That is the honest answer, and it is the reason we never treat these charges as minor.
The situations these charges usually come from
These charges rarely come from a planned act. Far more often they grow out of a moment: a heated argument that boils over, a text or social-media message sent in anger, a confrontation between people who know each other, or something said during a breakup or a dispute with a neighbor. Because these situations so often involve people who live together or are related, we frequently see threats-of-violence charges filed alongside a domestic assault or assault charge, and we handle them together. Words typed on a phone are permanent and easy to misread later without the tone that was in the room, which is one reason messages get charged as threats. None of that excuses a genuine threat, but it is why the same words can look very different to us once we lay out the full context.
In our experience most of these charges arise out of a domestic situation, and the state’s case frequently rests entirely on the word of the person who felt threatened. When a case comes down to one person’s account against another, a he-said-she-said with nothing more behind it, that should never be enough to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a large part of how these cases are defended.
How these cases are defended
Every case is different, and we will never promise you an outcome. That said, here is how we commonly challenge these charges:
- It was not a true threat. Angry words, venting, or hyperbole that a reasonable person would not take as a serious threat of violence may not meet the statute’s requirement.
- There was no intent and no reckless disregard. If the statement was not made to terrorize anyone and did not recklessly disregard that risk, an element the state must prove is missing.
- Protected speech. The First Amendment protects a great deal of angry, offensive, and even alarming speech; only true threats fall outside that protection.
- Context and how it was received. Who said it, to whom, in what setting, and how the other person actually reacted can change the whole picture of whether a real threat was made.
Which of these fit depends entirely on the facts, which is why our first step is always to look carefully at exactly what was said, where, and to whom, and to weigh it against what the state can actually prove.
These cases can be won. In State v. T.G., our client was acquitted at trial on this kind of charge; a short description of that result is on our firm’s victories page. Every case turns on its own facts, but it is a reminder that an accusation is not a conviction.
Frequently asked questions
What is considered a threat of violence in Minnesota?
A threat, direct or indirect, to commit a crime of violence, made either to terrorize someone or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing them. It does not have to be carried out, and it can be spoken, written, or communicated through a third person. It does have to be a genuine, or “true,” threat rather than obvious hyperbole or transitory anger.
What evidence is needed to prove a threat of violence?
The state relies on the words themselves (texts, messages, recordings, or witness accounts of what was said), plus the circumstances that show intent or reckless disregard, like the relationship between the people, prior history, and how the statement was received. Because so much rides on context, the same message can be strong evidence or weak evidence depending on everything around it, which is the first thing we pull apart.
Can threats of violence charges be dropped in Minnesota?
They can be reduced or dismissed, but not automatically, and not because the person who felt threatened decides they no longer want to pursue it. The prosecutor, not the alleged victim, controls the case. Charges are most often reduced or dismissed when the evidence does not establish a true threat or the required intent, which is something we work to show as early as we can.
Is this the same as “terroristic threats”?
Yes. Statute 609.713 was formerly titled “terroristic threats” and is now titled “threats of violence.” It is the same law, and both terms refer to the same charge.
Charged with Minnesota threats of violence?
When we take one of these cases, we start with the words themselves and the context around them, because that is where the state’s proof can be strongest and weakest at the same time. We would rather tell you honestly where your case is exposed than sell you a promise we cannot keep.
A threats-of-violence charge is a felony, and how it is handled in the first days matters. If you are facing one, the most useful thing you can do is talk to a lawyer who defends these cases specifically and can look at exactly what was said and in what context. That is what we do. You can learn more about how we defend these cases on our Minnesota threats of violence defense page, or see the full range of charges we handle in our criminal defense practice. If you have been charged, reach out and we will walk you through where you stand.