In re R.R., 2026 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 15

An Arizona appellate court reversed a youth’s delinquency adjudication, finding that the youth’s statements that he “thinks” or “fantasizes” “about shooting up the school” did not constitute a true threat. The court stated in relevant part:

“R.R. argues that his statement was not a true threat because he “specifically said that he would not do it” due to a lack of sufficient ammunition and a fear of the consequences. The record contains conflicting evidence about the precise words that R.R. used. But neither witness, N.G. or V.P., testified that R.R. had used words suggesting he would initiate a shooting.

. . . .

The primary difference between N.G.’s and V.P.’s testimony is that N.G. testified R.R. “wouldn’t” do it, while V.P. used the word “haven’t.” But either way, R.R.’s words cannot be understood as a “serious expression of an intent to inflict bodily harm.” See Kyle M., 200 Ariz. 447, ¶ 23. At best, if V.P.’s testimony were credited, R.R. was describing his past decisions not to engage in a shooting. And if N.G.’s testimony were credited, R.R. was expressing an intent not to do so.

Because the evidence was insufficient to permit the factfinder to conclude R.R. had made a true threat, we need not reach his argument that he could not be found to have committed threatening and intimidating against E.M. because he did not make the statement to E.M. or in E.M.’s presence. Nor need we reach R.R.’s argument that the state failed to comply with Rule 404(b)(3), Ariz. R. Evid., because it did not disclose evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” before the adjudication hearing. We reverse the juvenile court’s finding that R.R was responsible for committing three counts of threatening and intimidating.”