Opinion ID: 1814564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpretation of the statute. Milner was convicted of violating Iowa Code section 712.8:

Text: Any person who threatens to place or attempts to place any incendiary or explosive device or material, or any destructive substance or device in any place where it will endanger persons or property, commits a class D felony. Iowa Code § 712.8. Although we have never interpreted section 712.8 before, we have considered the meaning of the words threaten and threat in connection with other criminal statutes. In prior cases interpreting the words threaten or threat, we have applied the common meaning of those words. In State v. Crone, 545 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1996), we defined the word threaten using its ordinary meaning: promise punishment, reprisal, or other distress to. 545 N.W.2d at 271 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1993)). In State v. Jackson, 305 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1981), we defined the word threat as an expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury or damage on another. 305 N.W.2d at 423 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2382 (1976)). We further explained in Crone, the threat [must] be definite and understandable by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence. 545 N.W.2d at 271. Moreover, in considering whether a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would interpret another's statement as a threat, the statement is viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. State v. McGinnis, 243 N.W.2d 583, 589 (Iowa 1976). We think the same interpretation of threaten and threat applies here. Section 712.8 prohibits a person from expressing an intention to place an incendiary, explosive, or destructive device or material in a place where it will endanger persons or property. The prohibited statements must be understandable as a threat by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence. Interpreted in this way, the statute encompasses only true threats and does not reach expressions that a reasonable person would understand as a joke, idle talk, or mere statements of political hyperbole. B. Sufficiency of the evidence. In considering Milner's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we view the record in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Iowa 1989). We consider all the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the conviction. Id. Milner contends his statement, Just remember what happened in Oklahoma City, is not a threat by him to use an incendiary or explosive device. But Milner did not make a vague and isolated reference to the Oklahoma City bombing. Over a five-day period, he made, in an angry and threatening tone of voice, the following statements: 1. Just remember what happened in Oklahoma City. 2. I'll use the last of my gas money to come down and blow the place up. [2] 3. I'll drive in my truck and come blow you away. 4. I'm not going to be responsible for my behavior if you continue to aggravate me. 5. Someone might get hurt. 6. It is not going to be pretty if I have to come down there. [3] A reasonable person of ordinary intelligence could construe these statements, considered in the context and manner in which they were made, as serious expressions of an intention to place an explosive device or material where it will harm people or property. As we have stated before, [t]hreats need not be explicit; they may be made by innuendo or suggestion. It is only necessary that the threat be definite and understandable by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence. Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 271 (citation omitted). Milner's reference to the Oklahoma City incident, where a truck was rigged as a bomb, clearly made his later comments about driving his truck to the DES office and blowing the place up understandable as a threat to use an explosive device. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 249 (unabr. ed.1993) (defining bomb as a ... device carrying an explosive charge fused to detonate under certain conditions) (emphasis added). Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Milner threatened to use an explosive device in or near the DES building, including the testimony of the witnesses as to the specific words spoken by Milner, Milner's dissatisfaction and anger over the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits, his threatening tone of voice, and his agitated demeanor. Therefore, we reject Milner's claim the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.