High v. United States, 128 A.3d 1017

On July 5, 2018 MPD officers in plain clothes with visible police vests arrested Milon C. High, Jr. for unlawful entry; he was handcuffed and seated on a curb when the statements occurred.
Officer Brock Vigil (government's sole witness) testified that High glared at Officer Smith and said: “take that gun and badge off and I’ll fuck you up,” and later: “too bad it’s not like the old days where fucking up an officer is a misdemeanor.”
High spoke in a conversational tone; defense presented witnesses denying the statements and argued the remarks were expressions of frustration tied to the family’s prior bad feelings about police.
The trial court credited evidence the family harbored negative feelings toward police and found High guilty of attempted threats; he was sentenced to 60 days and appealed.
On appeal, High argued the government failed to prove that an ordinary hearer would reasonably fear serious bodily harm (and separately raised an intent/scienter challenge that the court declined to decide).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the words spoken would convey fear of serious bodily harm to an ordinary hearer (sufficiency)	Government: Officer Vigil heard the statements addressed to officers; in context threats to officers can be serious and support conviction	High: Words were expressions of exasperation/nostalgia, spoken while handcuffed and surrounded by officers, and would not induce fear of serious bodily harm in an ordinary hearer	Reversed — insufficient evidence: statements were expressions of frustration/constraint, not true threats that would reasonably induce fear of serious bodily harm
Whether the government proved the requisite scienter for threats	Government argued proof of utterance sufficed (as tried)	High argued intent to threaten not proven; court noted en banc consideration of scienter but did not decide here	Not decided: court reversed on sufficiency of the threat element and did not resolve scienter issue

Bolden v. United States, 835 A.2d 532 (D.C. 2003) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
Williams v. United States, 106 A.3d 1063 (D.C. 2015) (elements of threats: words must convey fear of serious bodily harm to ordinary hearer)
In re S.W., 45 A.3d 151 (D.C. 2012) (contextual patterns showing why statements to officers may be taken seriously)
Gayden v. United States, 107 A.3d 1101 (D.C. 2014) (upholding threat conviction where context supported reasonable fear)
Lewis v. United States, 95 A.3d 1289 (D.C. 2014) (conditional/past-impossible statements may fail to convey a real threat)
Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026 (D.C. 2000) (considering tone, manner, and officer’s interpretation in threat analysis)
Gray v. United States, 100 A.3d 129 (D.C. 2014) (context can turn words into threats; gestures and tone matter)
Postell v. United States, 282 A.2d 551 (D.C. 1971) (conditional threats tied to officer’s conduct may be actionable if not remote)
Carrell v. United States, 80 A.3d 163 (D.C. 2013) (discussion of scienter in threats prosecutions; en banc consideration noted)