State v. Johnson, 964 N.W.2d 500

In September 2019 the Eddy County Sheriff lawfully possessed guns belonging to Darin Johnson.
Between Sept. 15–26, 2019, Johnson posted multiple social-media messages directed at the sheriff, including lyrics and comments like “giv[ing] ya a bullet” and “shit is going down if I don’t get my guns back by Friday.”
On Sept. 24, 2019, Johnson drove to the New Rockford courthouse, revved his truck, circled the building, and shouted profanities at the sheriff; the courthouse was placed on lockdown.
A deputy who spoke with Johnson perceived his statements as threats; others, including the sheriff, feared for their safety; the FBI received a threat-related call.
Johnson was arrested Sept. 26 and charged with terrorizing (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04). At trial, the district court denied Rule 29 motions; a jury convicted Johnson.
The court instructed the jury using Johnson’s proposed definition of “threat,” requiring consideration from a reasonable-recipient perspective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether threats directed at a law-enforcement officer fall outside N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04	State: Johnson’s words and conduct intended or recklessly created fear and satisfied terrorizing elements	Johnson: Speech directed at law enforcement is protected or should be treated as an exception to terrorizing	Court: No law-enforcement exception; statute covers threats against officers
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a terrorizing conviction	State: Social-media posts + courthouse conduct + victims’ fear suffice to prove intent/recklessness and a threat to commit violence	Johnson: Evidence insufficient because conduct targeted a law-enforcement officer and was non-threatening speech	Court: Reviewing evidence most favorably to prosecution, substantial evidence supported conviction

State v. Brossart, 858 N.W.2d 275 (N.D. 2015) (defines “threat” and endorses objective reasonable-recipient standard)
State v. Laib, 705 N.W.2d 815 (N.D. 2005) (sets out elements for terrorizing conviction)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (speech aimed at police may be protected when not threatening)
City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 469 N.W.2d 808 (N.D. 1991) (distinguished conduct that was rude but not threatening)
City of Bismarck v. Nassif, 449 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1989) (addressed violent language toward officers and limits of protection)
State v. Spillum, 954 N.W.2d 673 (N.D. 2021) (articulates standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)