in Re Thomas James Gilbert
333297
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Juvenile respondent (Thomas James Gilbert) was charged after classmates reported he said he intended to bring a gun to school to shoot certain students and then himself.
- School officials removed respondent, notified parents and police, and the school day was dismissed early.
- At trial a police officer testified respondent said he previously "felt like" bringing a gun in eighth grade and was feeling that way again; at least one classmate testified respondent said he was feeling like he had before and would shoot up the school.
- Some witnesses testified respondent did not directly threaten them; other students testified they felt "uncomfortable," "fearful," and reported concerns to school staff.
- Jury convicted respondent of making a false report or threat of terrorism (MCL 750.543m) and disturbing the peace (MCL 750.170); court placed respondent on probation and imposed community service and juvenile-detention sanction (held in abeyance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for MCL 750.543m (terrorist threat/false report) | Evidence showed respondent threatened to bring a gun to school to kill classmates and himself, satisfying elements of an "act of terrorism." | Respondent claimed he was reporting feelings (not threatening) and that "bringing a gun to school" alone is not a violent felony. | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, jury reasonably found respondent threatened a willful, deliberate act dangerous to human life and intended to intimidate a population subset. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for MCL 750.170 (disturbing the peace) | Threats caused fear and disquiet among students, disrupted school order, satisfying the disturbance element. | Implicit: respondent contested that his statements were not a disturbance. | Affirmed: testimony of fear and multiple reports showed interference with school peace and order. |
| Jury credibility findings | N/A | Argued conflicting testimony precluded conviction. | Rejected: credibility and conflicts are for the jury to resolve. |
| Constitutional overbreadth of "exciting a contention" phrase in MCL 750.170 | Prosecutor proceeded under "exciting a disturbance," not the overbroad phrase, so constitutional challenge not implicated. | N/A | Court noted prior decision finding phrase overbroad but held it was not at issue here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lueth, 253 Mich. App. 670 (application of de novo review for sufficiency)
- People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Allen, 201 Mich. App. 98 (circumstantial evidence and inferences can sustain conviction)
- In re Weiss, 224 Mich. App. 37 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt in delinquency proceedings)
- People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417 (credibility determinations are for the jury)
- People v. Vandenberg, 307 Mich. App. 57 (holding phrase "exciting a contention" in MCL 750.170 overbroad)
- People v. Weinberg, 6 Mich. App. 345 (definition of "disturbance" in public order contexts)