Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism

Case Summary

In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was unconstitutional because it lacked a required subjective mental‑state element.

The Court of Appeals initially agreed, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v Colorado, which held that true‑threat statutes must require proof that the speaker had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements.

The Michigan Supreme Court later vacated that decision and remanded the case. On remand, the Court of Appeals upheld the statute by applying the constitutional‑doubt canon and interpreting the law to include a recklessness requirement.

Background

Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute criminalizes communicating threats of violence intended to intimidate or coerce. After Counterman, courts nationwide have been reevaluating threat statutes to ensure they include a constitutionally required mental state. Without such a requirement, statutes risk criminalizing protected speech or chilling lawful expression.

The key question in Kvasnicka was whether Michigan’s statute implicitly contained a mens rea requirement even though the text did not expressly state one.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

Initial Court of Appeals Decision:

• Held the statute unconstitutional because it lacked a subjective mental‑state requirement.

• Found that Counterman required proof that the defendant understood the threatening nature of his statements.

Michigan Supreme Court:

• Vacated the Court of Appeals decision.

• Remanded for reconsideration under the constitutional‑doubt canon.

Court of Appeals on Remand:

• Applied the constitutional‑doubt canon, which requires courts to adopt any reasonable interpretation that avoids constitutional problems.

• Concluded that because the statute does not specify a mens rea, courts may instruct juries that the defendant must have consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communication would be viewed as threatening violence.

• Reversed its earlier ruling and upheld the statute’s constitutionality.

What’s at Stake

This case sits at the intersection of free speech and public safety. The stakes include:

• Protecting constitutional speech by ensuring threat statutes require a subjective mental state.

• Preserving public‑safety tools that allow prosecutors to address genuine threats of violence.

• Clarifying statutory interpretation when legislative silence creates constitutional ambiguity.

The decision ensures Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute remains enforceable while aligning with modern First Amendment requirements.

In Closing

The Michigan Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeals’ ruling that deemed the state’s terroristic threats statute facially invalid and has sent the case back for further evaluation of whether the complete invalidation of the statute can be prevented by interpreting the mens rea requirement.

People v Kvasnicka ultimately reaffirms the constitutionality of Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute by reading a recklessness standard into the law. The case illustrates how courts balance constitutional protections with the need to address serious threats, and it provides a clear interpretive framework for future true‑threat prosecutions.

Here are some related links and articles

• MCL 750.543m — Threat of terrorism
• People v Kvasnicka, No 371542
• SADO – Article – Michigan Supreme Court vacates and remands in Kvasnicka
• Counterman v Colorado, 600 US 66 (2023) — True‑threat mens rea requirement
• People-v-Jones-860-NW2d-112-497-Mich-155-Mich-2014 — Constitutional‑doubt canon

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.