commvmilo

433 Mass 149 (2000)
 * Commonwealth v. Milo**

D – Milo M. (a juvenile) found to be delinquent by reason of threatening his teacher appeals the Juvenile Court’s decision of delinquency. P - Commonwealth of Massachusetts found juvenile to be a delinquent as a result of threatening his teacher.
 * Facts:**


 * Issues / Answers:**
 * 1) The juvenile argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the judge’s findings that the juvenile threatened the teacher. / No, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence.
 * 2) The juvenile’s First Amendment rights were violated. / No


 * Basis / Rationale:**


 * Legal Basis:** The court concluded that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile threatened the teacher.

The Intent to carry out the threat could be inferred for the following reasons:
 * Rationale:** In making this determination the court considered the context in which the allegedly threatening drawing was given to the teacher and all of the surrounding circumstances.
 * 1) The content of each drawing separately evidences his intent and makes the intent clear.
 * 2) The intent could be inferred from the number of drawings
 * 3) The intent could be inferred from his angry demeanor and defiant manner when he held out the drawing to her


 * Legal Basis**: Precedent //Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721, 725 (2000)//
 * Rationale:** The First Amendment does not protect conduct that threatens another.

1998 – twelve year old juvenile – Milo M. sat at a desk in the hallway outside of the classroom waiting for the principal and drawing a picture. A teacher confiscated the picture, which was a violent scene of the juvenile shooting the teacher, and showed it to the teacher. Meanwhile the juvenile left the desk, entered the classroom, took a piece of paper, returned to the desk in the hall and promptly drew another violent picture. He then reentered the classroom and stood near the doorway and held up the second picture which was of him pointing a gun at the teacher. He said to her in a defiant tone “Do you want this one too?” He was suspended for three days immediately. Two teachers noticed him loitering after school around the threatened teacher’s car in the parking lot.
 * Notes**:

The case was only based on the second of the drawings because it was the only one that was directly meant for her and given to her via another student. However, the first drawing was also used as evidence that the threat was made.

Judge notes “While public schools remain very safe places for children to be, with respect to this appeal, we face the important and troubling question whether, given recent highly publicized incidents of school violence, a drawing that depicts a student pointing a gun at his teacher constitutes a threat. We conclude that it does, and thus, affirm the adjudication of delinquency.”

People v. Pruitt 1996 “judges cannot ignore what everybody else knows; violence and the threat of violence are present in the public schools….Teachers….have a duty to take whatever lawful steps are necessary to assure that the school premises are safe and weapon free.”

They go on to reference all recent school shootings (including Columbine High School)