State v. Krijger, 313 Conn. 434

Long-standing zoning dispute between defendant and the town over debris on 18 Totoket Rd in Waterford.
July 21, 2008, defendant, representing himself, confronted Kepple outside the New London courthouse after a contempt hearing.
Defendant called Kepple a liar and an asshole; then stated, “More of what happened to your son is going to happen to you” and “I’m going to be there to watch it happen.”
Kepple’s son had sustained severe, publicized injuries in a car accident years earlier; the town sought fines against defendant for ongoing zoning violations.
Defendant was charged with threatening in the second degree under § 53a-62(a)(3) and breach of the peace under § 53a-181(a)(3); the jury convicted on the 53a-62(a)(3) (reckless disregard) and breach charges, but acquitted on the 53a-62(a)(2) count.
Appellate Court affirmed, with Judge Lavine dissenting; this court granted certification to determine whether the evidence established true threats under the First Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statements were true threats under 53a-62(3) and 53a-181(3).	State argues the remarks were a true threat given context and impact on Kepple.	Krijger contends statements are spontaneous, not true threats; ambiguous and not highly likely to be perceived as a real threat.	No; evidence insufficient under objective standard to show a serious, imminent threat.
What is the proper standard of review for First Amendment true-threat determinations in this case.	State relies on de novo/independent review of the record.	Krijger argues for independent factual review but emphasizes evaluating the threat as a matter of law.	Court applies de novo independent review for the ultimate true-threat determination but accepts non-contradictory credibility findings.
Did the evidence remove ambiguity in the defendant’s statements to Kepple?	Kepple’s version shows a clear threat.	Ambiguity remains; non-threatening interpretation possible, including a spontaneous outburst.	Insufficient evidence to remove ambiguity; acquittal proper on the charged counts.
Does prior relationship/context affect whether a statement is a true threat?	Hostile context would support treating remarks as a threat.	Absence of prior hostility weakens the threat; contextual factors do not convert the statements into threats.	Context did not render the statements a true threat; no liability.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (independent review to ensure proper First Amendment application)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (true threats must be objectively understood as serious intent to harm)
State v. Cook, 287 Conn. 237 (Conn. 2008) (true threats require an objective, context-based inquiry)
State v. DeLoreto, 265 Conn. 145 (Conn. 2003) (distinguishes true threats from protected speech in context)
United States v. Malik, 16 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1994) (true threat standard includes unequivocal, unconditional threat requirements)