M.C. v. State, 2026 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (Ala. Crim. App. 2026)

The Alabama Criminal Appeals Court reversed an adjudication of making a terrorist threat in the second degree based on insufficient evidence. The court stated in relevant part:

“The definition of “threaten” in § 13A-10-242(2) specifically refers to three people. Subsection a. refers to the person who “makes [the] statement.” Subsection b. refers to the person to whom the statement “is communicated.” And subsection d. refers to “the person threatened.” We note that, although “the person threatened” in subsection d. and the person to whom the statement “is communicated” in subsection b. may be the same person, nothing in the plain language of § 13A-10-242 or § 13A-10-240(2) requires that they be the same person, and, in this case, the two are different.

. . . .

Having determined that “the person” referred to in subsection e. is the person to whom the statement is communicated, we agree with M.C. that there was insufficient evidence indicating that her statement “shoot her first” caused D.H. to fear for his own safety or for the safety of M.C.’s teacher. In her statement, M.C. said that D.H. often talked about shooting up the school, to the point that she was uncomfortable enough to ask him to stop. When M.C. then complained to D.H. about her teacher, D.H. responded by stating, “[g]onna shoot the school up,” and M.C., in turn, told D.H. to “shoot her first,” referring to her teacher. Given that D.H. was the one who was “[g]onna shoot the school up,” it is not reasonable that he would fear for his own safety, much less for the safety of the occupants of the school he planned to “shoot up,” including M.C.’s teacher.”