This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Gregory Allen Sorenson,
Filed December 20, 2005
Stearns County District Court
File No. K8-04-491
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Tibor M. Gallo, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Janelle Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Administration Center, Room 448, 705 Courthouse Square, St. Cloud, MN 56303-4701 (for respondent)
Daniel Guerrero, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., 1616 Park Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55404 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Gregory Allen Sorenson challenges his conviction of terroristic threats, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to
a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow
the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.
State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426,
appellant argues that the state failed to prove that he intended to terrorize
or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing another
individual. Intent is a subjective state
of mind, but may be inferred from the “surrounding circumstances.” Schweppe,
Here, a licensed practical nurse testified that appellant, a patient she had spoken with on several prior occasions, telephoned the mental health unit of the hospital and “rant[ed] and rave[d]” to her for approximately 20 to 30 minutes. His tone was loud and he became angrier as he complained about his doctor, missed appointments, his pain, and his medication. When the nurse offered to find appellant an earlier doctor appointment, appellant indicated that he did not want to see his doctor, Dr. Kemp, and then stated, “Dr. Kemp is dead to me. If I see Dr. Kemp I’ll shoot him.” Appellant then hung up the phone.
The nurse testified that the phone conversation left her “trembling and shaking” and afraid that appellant would “come in and shoot up the place.” The nurse became so upset that she could not immediately tell others what had happened. When the nurse spoke with the police later that morning, she was still trembling and her eyes were watering. Appellant argues that the nurse reacted so severely only because she had worked in the mental health unit for less than a year. But the nurse had 18 years of nursing experience and the other hospital staff also took the threats seriously.
The nurse was directed to notify Dr. Kemp and the police of the phone conversation. Dr. Kemp testified that he was concerned for his own safety and the others in the clinic, and that he takes “such comments very seriously” because “there’s never any way of knowing what someone will or won’t do in the future.” Additionally, a police officer testified that although patients have previously threatened the hospital staff, unlike appellant’s threat, the previous threats came from patients locked in the psychiatric unit who were on heavy medication.
further argues that he lacked the intent to terrorize because he was merely
angry and frustrated. But anger does not
always negate a speaker’s intent. See, e.g., State v. Stephenson, 361 N.W.2d 844, 845 (
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.