Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Donna Mae Gotchie,
Filed May 12, 1998
Itasca County District Court
File No. K5-96-1596
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
John J. Muhar, Itasca County Attorney, Courthouse, 123 Fourth Street NE, Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Dwayne Bryan, Assistant State Public Defender, Suite 600, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Appellant Donna Mae Gotchie challenges her conviction for making terroristic threats. Because the evidence produced at trial supports the jury's verdict, we affirm.
A terroristic threat requires a threat "to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another." Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 (1996). A defendant must
utter the threat with the purpose of terrorizing another. Purpose in this context means aim, objective, or intention. Terrorize means to cause extreme fear by use of violence or threats.
State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 400, 237 N.W.2d 609, 614 (1975) (citation omitted). An intent to terrorize can be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Id.
Gotchie argues that she did not intend to terrorize Bliss and that her threats expressed only transitory anger. At trial, Gotchie testified that she was not angry and made no threats. However, Bliss testified that Gotchie repeatedly threatened him at different times and locations; he further testified that he was concerned the threats might be carried out because he knew Gotchie had a violent temper and many relatives in the community. Bliss's testimony supports an inference that Gotchie intended to terrorize him. See id. at 401, 237 N.W.2d at 614 (effect of threat on victim relevant to element of intent); State v. Skramstad, 433 N.W.2d 449, 451, 455 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming jury's conviction for terroristic threats where police officer's life was repeatedly threatened during fight and later arrest), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1989).
Gotchie's reliance on civil cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress is unpersuasive. The trial court properly instructed the jury, without objection, on the requirements for a conviction of terroristic threats. "[G]iven the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts," the jury could reasonably conclude that Gotchie was guilty of making terroristic threats. State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn. 1978).