State v. Taveras — concurring

Summary

The concurrence joins the majority's reversal of the Appellate Court and emphasizes that whether an ostensibly ambiguous statement constitutes an unprotected true threat depends on the surrounding factual context, including the speaker's conduct and demeanor. It also stresses the need for searching and independent appellate review so that expressions of anger or frustration are not automatically treated as criminal conduct. Justice D’Auria, joined by Justice McDonald, concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the result but preferring to resolve the case without a true-threats analysis.