Court Opinion

ID: 9784063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:36:48.445353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:48.081606
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
dissenting: I agree with the Court of Appeals. The State failed to prove that Cope threatened to commit violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing the evacuation of the courthouse. The State, in its petition for review, relies on Findlay v. State, 235 Kan. 462, 467, 681 P.2d 20 (1984) (defendant threatened to kill victim during telephone conversation); State v. Butler, 25 Kan. App. 2d 35, 37, 956 P.2d 733, rev. denied 265 Kan. 886 (1998) (defendant directly told officer he would kill him and other officers); and State v. Dubish, 234 Kan. 708, 720, 675 P.2d 877 (1984) (defendant directly threatened to send two men to victim’s house *650to harm her if she called police). AH involved threats communicated to the intended victim.
The Court of Appeals observed here that: (1) K.S.A. 21-3419 requires a specific mental state of intending to cause terror or evacuation of a building, or acting in disregard of the risk of causing such terror evacuation; (2) the definition of “reckless” requires conduct done under circumstances that show a “realization of the imminence of danger” and “a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 486 (citing State v. Huser, 265 Kan. 228, 232, 959 P.2d 908 [1998]).
In my view, the evidence was simply insufficient to establish that Cope possessed the requisite mental state for criminal threat. There was no evidence that he made the statements he did with a realization of, or in conscious disregard of, a risk of causing an evacuation of the Johnson County courthouse. Rather, reviewing all the evidence regarding the events of April 29,1999, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence shows that Charles Wiegand, a coworker and former police officer, under the guise of looking at a truck Cope was trying to sell, approached Cope and initiated the discussion about the courthouse. Cope, responding to Wiegand’s questioning, became upset and talked about storming the courthouse. Cope also told Wiegand, in the same conversation, that he did not have the weapons and explosives required to storm the courthouse, and, though he claimed he knew a supplier, he admitted he did not have the money to buy them. He claimed he was saving his money and told Wiegand he was not going to do anything immediately. On direct examination, the prosecutor inquired of Wiegand:
“Did you bring up these concerns about the threats that were being made? In other words, do you say to the defendant, I’m hearing from Jeremy (Walker) you got some problems with the Johnson County Courthouse? Is that the way it begins?
Wiegand responded:
“Something along those lines, yes. *651On cross-examination, in response to the question “So you got him started, and he started off talking?” Wiegand responded, “Basically, yes.”
The Court of Appeals’ consideration of the police investigation of Cope after learning of tire statements was part of the totality of evidence which must properly be considered in determining whether Cope’s statements were made in recldess disregard of the risk of causing an evacuation of the courthouse. “All circumstances surrounding the communication . . . must be considered in determining whether the communication in issue is a terroristic threat.” State v. Miller, 6 Kan. App. 2d 432, 435, 629 P.2d 748 (1981). Evidence that the police searched Cope’s home and found only one gun that was legally possessed and that police followed him and observed nothing unusual, contrary to the majority’s inference, were significant.
Allegrucci, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.