This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of: F.J.L.
Filed May 9, 2006
Cass County District Court
File No. J3-05-50076
Stuart, State Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant Public Defender,
Earl E. Maus,
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
In this appeal from an adjudication of delinquency on one count of making terroristic threats, appellant F.J.L. argues that the district court erred by failing to apply a reasonable-juvenile standard when analyzing whether statements were made out of transitory anger. Because appellant waived this issue by failing to raise it before the district court, we affirm.
While on patrol, Police Officer Anthony Petrie approached appellant, whom Petrie recognized from previous dealings, to arrest him on outstanding warrants. Appellant ignored Petrie’s instructions to stop and, when Petrie walked in front of appellant to try to stop him, appellant swore at Petrie and walked around him. Appellant had his hands in his pockets and refused to remove them. Petrie sprayed appellant in the face with chemical spray and brought him to a squad car and used handcuffs and leg shackles to restrain him.
On the way to the jail, appellant repeatedly threatened to shoot Petrie in the head and the face with a .45-caliber pistol and said that he was willing to die as long as he shot Petrie. A corrections officer testified that at the jail, appellant again threatened Petrie, saying that when he got out of jail, “he was going to shoot [Petrie] in the head because shooting in the chest didn’t do any good because he had a body armor on.”
Appellant, who was age 16 at the time of the incident, testified that he was afraid of Petrie because of previous incidents. Appellant described himself as being intoxicated, afraid, and angry because his eyes were burning. Appellant had two prior fourth-degree-assault convictions for assaults committed against Petrie.
argues that the district court should have applied a reasonable-juvenile standard
when evaluating appellant’s transitory-anger defense. Appellant concedes that he did not raise this
issue before the district court. An
appellate court generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on
appeal. State v. Sorenson, 441 N.W.2d 455, 457 (
cites Sorenson and State v. Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134 (
an exception to the waiver rule in this case would prejudice respondent State
Because appellant has waived the reasonable-juvenile-standard issue, we do not address the merits of the claim. But we do note that appellant cites no authority recognizing a reasonable-juvenile standard for a terroristic-threats offense.
 F.J.L. does not challenge on appeal the district court’s findings that acts committed by F.J.L. constituted underage consumption of alcohol and disorderly conduct.
 For a discussion of the transitory-anger defense, see State v. Marchand, 410 N.W.2d 912, 915 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 1987), and State v. Dick, 638 N.W.2d 486, 492-93 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002), stating that “the charge of terroristic threats is not meant to encompass verbal threats expressing transitory anger without intent to terrorize.”