In the matter of C.S., COA24-46, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 31, 2024)

Held: Reversed

Facts: The juvenile posted a screenshot of his school’s announcement of a three-day spirit week on Snapchat. The juvenile superimposed the following over the screenshot: “THIS IS SOME FUCKING BULLSHIT, IMMA SHOOT UP AL BROWN (for reason that I do not wish to have the police come to my house, it is a joke I do not nor have I ever owned a gun.) Thank you pls don’t report me[.]” Snapchat flagged the post as containing a threat of mass violence and the SBI connected the post to the juvenile. The juvenile explained that the post was a joke during his interview with the investigating officer. The juvenile was charged with communicating a threat to commit an act of mass violence on educational property (G.S. 14-277.6) and making a false report concerning mass violence on educational property (G.S. 14-277.5). The trial court denied a motion to dismiss both petitions for insufficient evidence and the youth was adjudicated delinquent on both petitions.

Opinion:

• Insufficient evidence to support charge of communicating a threat to commit an act of mass violence on educational property

A true threat analysis is required to apply G.S. 14-277.6 in accordance with the protections of the First Amendment. A true threat requires both an objectively threatening statement and the subjective intent to threaten a listener or an identifiable group. In re D.R.F., 293 N.C. App. 544, 549. The factors for analyzing a true threat in State v. Taylor, 379 N.C. 589 (2021), include both the context of the communication and the negating language of the communication. The context in this case was a post on social media and not a message to any particular person. There was no evidence presented as to how Snapchat flagged the post or that anyone outside of Snapchat, the SBI, and the investigating officer was aware of, reported, or feared the communication. The negating language in the post, including that the juvenile did not own a gun and characterization of the post as a joke, are also factors that indicate that the post was a distasteful “joke” and not objectively threatening. Slip op. at 13. No evidence was presented that any student or staff member felt threatened or notified the school of the post. There was also no evidence that the school made any changes to the school day as a result of the post. Evidence that creates “’a suspicion that it would be objectively reasonable’ to think Fabian was serious in making his threat… is not ‘enough to create an inference to satisfy the State’s burden.’” Slip op. at 12, quoting In re Z.P., 280 N.C. App. at 446. Considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the communication was objectively threatening. The trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the petition is reversed.

• Insufficient evidence to support charge of making a false report concerning mass violence on educational property

The State must prove that the juvenile was making a report in order to survive a motion to dismiss the charge of making a false report concerning mass violence on educational property. The State did not present substantial evidence that the juvenile made a report. The post was not directed to any specific person, there was no evidence that anyone unrelated to the investigation saw the post, and law enforcement was not aware of any statements about the post made to any individuals. The only evidence was that Snapchat flagged the post and brought it to the attention of law enforcement. Alternatively, it would not have been reasonable for someone to construe the post as a report of a credible threat, especially considering the context and negating language described in the true threat analysis. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was not substantial evidence that the post was a report within the meaning of G.S. 14-277.5. The trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the petition is reversed.