Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct after a phone conversation with the advancement director of a private school during which he asked about school's security measures and asked her a rapid-fire succession of graphic questions and hypothetical scenarios about shooting schoolchildren. Conversation caused a soft lockdown at the school and a police response. Court properly found that Defendant was subjectively aware of the threatening nature of his speech. Defendant's questions and statements were objectively threatening in the circumstances in which they were given, and his speech constituted a true threat unprotected by the first amendment. A rational trier of fact could conclude that the elements of disorderly conduct were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence was not so improbable r unsatisfactory as to create a doubt about Defendant's guilt. (A. BURKE, KARMEIER, THEIS, and M. BURKE, concurring; NEVILLE and KILBRIDE, dissenting.)
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
First Amendment