## Facts

- A 12-year-old student (Milo) was seated in a school hallway awaiting a meeting with the principal regarding prior issues.
- Milo drew a picture depicting himself shooting his teacher (Mrs. F); another teacher confiscated it and showed it to Mrs. F.
- Milo then drew a second picture showing a figure labeled with Milo’s name aiming a gun at a figure labeled with Mrs. F’s name, with the teacher appearing to plead not to be shot.
- Milo went to the classroom doorway, held up the second drawing toward Mrs. F, and in a defiant tone said, “Do you want this one too?”
- Mrs. F could not initially see the second drawing’s contents from her location, but based on the first drawing and Milo’s demeanor, she believed he was angry.
- Mrs. F directed another student to take the second drawing from Milo; after viewing it, she became afraid for her safety.
- Milo was suspended for three days and sent home; later that day, Mrs. F and the other teacher saw Milo near Mrs. F’s car in the school parking area.
- The Commonwealth charged Milo under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, § 2 for threatening Mrs. F; a Juvenile Court judge found him delinquent after a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Milo intentionally expressed a threat to commit a crime and caused the teacher reasonably to fear he had the ability to carry it out, as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, § 2.
2. Whether the threat was “communicated” to the teacher where she did not initially see the second drawing directly from Milo’s hand.
3. Whether treating the drawings and related conduct as a criminal threat violated the First Amendment because the expression was protected speech rather than an unprotected “true threat.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held the evidence permitted an objective finding that the drawings and Milo’s conduct conveyed an intent to commit a crime against the teacher.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding that the teacher’s fear that Milo could carry out the threat was reasonable.
- The court held the threat was adequately communicated to the teacher through Milo’s display, statement, and the teacher’s prompt receipt and viewing of the drawing.
- The court held the First Amendment did not bar the adjudication because the expression, viewed objectively and in context, constituted a “true threat.”

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, § 2, the Commonwealth must prove a communicated expression of intent to commit a crime and that the victim reasonably feared the defendant had the ability to carry out the threat.
- Intent and ability may be assessed using an objective standard based on the content of the expression and surrounding circumstances.
- A threat may be communicated through nonverbal expression and conduct, not only through direct verbal statements.
- “True threats” fall outside First Amendment protection when, objectively and in context, the expression is a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence rather than protected hyperbole or fantasy.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for threatening a teacher, holding that gun-violence drawings, combined with the student’s confrontational conduct and surrounding circumstances, supported objective findings of intent, communication, and reasonable fear of ability to carry out the threat, and therefore did not implicate protected speech.


Commonwealth v. Milo M., 433 Mass. 149, 740 N.E.2d 967 (Mass. 2001)