Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, to sustain an adjudication of delinquency under G. L. c. 269, § 14 (b), the Commonwealth must prove that the juvenile consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communication would be viewed as threatening violence, as required by Counterman v. Colorado. Although the trial court omitted this mens rea instruction, the court concluded that the omission created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, while the evidence was sufficient to support the adjudication and probable cause supported the complaint. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether G. L. c. 269, § 14 (b), requires the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence.
- Whether the omission of a Counterman-type mens rea instruction created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice when the juvenile's objection did not specifically identify the omitted instruction.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the juvenile willfully reposted the image and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that it would be viewed as threatening violence.
- Whether probable cause supported the delinquency complaint.
- Whether the court should address four additional alleged trial errors involving hearsay, TikTok testimony, prosecutorial appeal to sympathy, and misstatement of evidence.
Holdings
- To sustain a conviction or adjudication of delinquency under G. L. c. 269, § 14 (b), the Commonwealth must prove, in addition to the statute's other elements, that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence and made or caused it to be made nonetheless.
- The failure to instruct the jury on the required Counterman mens rea was error, and because the juvenile's ambiguous objection did not preserve the issue, the error was reviewed for a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; that risk was present.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile willfully reposted the school-shooting image and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the repost would be viewed as threatening violence.
- Probable cause supported the delinquency complaint, and the Juvenile Court correctly denied the motion to dismiss.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, in order to sustain a conviction under G. L. c. 269, § 14 (b), the Commonwealth must prove, in addition to the elements set out in the statute, see Kerns, 449 Mass. at 651, that the defendant (or, as in this case, the juvenile) consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communication would be viewed as threatening violence and made it, or caused it to be made, nonetheless.” (at 6)
“To sustain a conviction or adjudication of delinquency under G. L. c. 269, § 14 (b), the Commonwealth must prove as an element of the offense that the individual who made the threat "consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence."” (Conclusion)
Factual background
A high school student reposted on a public TikTok account an image depicting a person in a school hallway aiming an assault rifle, with the words "Me at School" across the image. A former girlfriend saw the image, was terrified, and alerted her mother and school officials. The juvenile acknowledged that the image reflected his "dark sense of humor," but claimed that he had reposted it accidentally and removed it after realizing the mistake. The evidence also included the mechanics of TikTok's repost function, the juvenile's conflicting explanations, and information in the police report concerning prior interactions involving threats or violence.
Procedural history
A complaint was sworn in the Middlesex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on January 24, 2024. The Juvenile Court denied the juvenile's motion to dismiss, and a jury returned a finding of delinquency after trial. The judge later vacated the delinquency finding, continued the case without a finding, and imposed probation conditions until the juvenile's nineteenth birthday. The case was dismissed after the juvenile completed probation and turned nineteen, but the Supreme Judicial Court reached the merits because of potential collateral consequences of a delinquency complaint.
Remand instructions
Remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proceedings required because the jury was not instructed on the Counterman mens rea element.