September 27, 2016
Vociferous Voicemails
On September 26, 2016, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released State v. Shelton, A15-1869. Similar to the sugar case and the car wash case this case was unpublished. Meaning, of course, this case has no precedential value. It can only be used to persuade the court or during a really weird dinner party. Shelton is not about the voice of a male at the Blake school. It is about female leaving a voicemail at the St. Cloud Social Security Office. Without further ado here is the voicemail:
“Bayyinah Shelton, [Social Security number redacted], I’m gonna kill everybody, I’m sick [of] you guys f—ing with me for no g–d–n reason, I didn’t even submit a f—ing claim so I don’t know why you guys are even riding me and telling me some bulls—, and I didn’t even f—ing submit a g–d–n claim, so why the f— are you guys riding me? Call me back and I might try to kill you guys, [appellant’s telephone number], you’re starting f—ing war (indiscernible) killing all you f—ing white people, I’m sick of this stupid sh–.”
The social security case worker reported the message to her supervisor, who turned the message over to the police. Not surprisingly Ms. Shelton was charged with making a Terroristic Threat. This case was in 2014 and the legislature has since changed the name of the crime to Threats of Violence. Ms. Shelton waived her right to have a 12 person jury decide her case and elected to have a trial to a Judge sitting alone.
Ms. Shelton first testified that she had no recollection of the day the threatening message was left. She later testified that she remembered interacting with police officers at her residence. She believed she had left the message and described it as shocking and disturbing. She claimed that she contacted the Social Security office because she was trying to figure out what was wrong with her mental health, and thought that she had left the message in a “dream state.” While I have not seen the transcript, my guess is no Gary Clark lyrics were used in closing arguments. Ms. Shelton was convicted and appealed.
Minnesota law provides that a person is guilty of making terroristic threats if she “threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another . . . or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1. “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). The State argued that Ms. Shelton recklessly disregarded the risk of causing terror when she left the voicemail message. A statement is threatening if the “communication in its context would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor.” Id. at 399, 237 N.W.2d at 613 (quotations omitted). A “crime of violence” includes third-degree assault. See Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 1(d) (2012) (listing third-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223 (2012) as a crime of violence).
Ms. Shelton does not dispute that she made the statements on the voicemail message. She argues only that the state failed to prove the mental-state requirement. In the context of a terroristic-threats conviction, “[r]ecklessness requires deliberate action in disregard of a known, substantial risk.” State v. Bjergum, 771 N.W.2d 53, 57 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 2009). “[A] person who might lack a specific intent to threaten or terrorize may nevertheless utter an objectively threatening statement recklessly, committing a terroristic-threats crime. By acting without regard to a known, substantial risk, a person’s threats, however, intended, may violate the statute.” Id.
The Court said she left her name, like Maine Governor, Paul LePage. She also left her social security number which has been kept secret on this blog to prevent her from being a victim of identity fraud. She called the direct number of the person who sent her the forms and said some not very nice things. The Court of Appeals said that the fact-finder could reasonably find she recklessly disregarded the risk of terror her statements could cause the social security worker.
A couple of takeaways here. If you are mad and want to leave a voicemail you can say something more diplomatic like “the policies in your office has caused me great umbrage. I am infuriated and unsatisfied. Here is my social security number [social security number redacted]. I would respectfully request the return phone call from a supervisor to discuss my litany of concerns.” A second takeaway, do not say you “might” kill people employed by an agency if they call you back and then leave your phone number to have that agent call you back. You catch more flies with honey. Threatening multiple homicides is never a good way to get someone to call you back. Finally, I am no in way blaming the agency, because I certainly would not like a message like that on my voicemail, but it would be practically impossible to leave an angry message with a singing outgoing message. Imagine saying this:
“Bayyinah Shelton, [Social Security number redacted], I’m gonna kill everybody, I’m sick [of] you guys f—ing with me for no g–d–n reason, I didn’t even submit a f—ing claim so I don’t know why you guys are even riding me and telling me some bulls—, and I didn’t even f—ing submit a g–d–n claim, so why the f— are you guys riding me? Call me back and I might try to kill you guys, [appellant’s telephone number], you’re starting f—ing war (indiscernible) killing all you f—ing white people, I’m sick of this stupid sh–.”
If the voicemail greeting was like this:
*** This blog represents the opinion of the law firm SailorsAllen Law and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice you should call an attorney. Preferably one from SailorsAllen Law, but really, any attorney. ***
