State v. Krijger

Summary

The court held that the defendant's offensive statements were protected speech rather than true threats because, viewed in their full context, they were more plausibly a spontaneous expression of anger than a serious expression of intent to inflict physical violence. Applying independent appellate review to the ultimate constitutional question while deferring to factual credibility findings, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction and ordered acquittal. No separate opinions were filed.