Ye v. State

Andrea Ye v. State of Maryland, No. 709, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Graeff, J. FIRST AMENDMENT — TRUE THREATS — STANDARD OF REVIEW — MENS REA — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (“CR”) § 3-1001(b) (2021 Repl. Vol.), prohibits knowingly making a threat of mass violence. “True threats” of violence is a “historically unprotected category of communications” under the First Amendment. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S .66, 74 (2023). To determine whether a communication constitutes a “true threat,” courts consider: (1) “‘[t]he context in which the words were’ communicated”; (2) “the specificity of the threat,” and (3) “the ‘reaction of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context’ in which the words were spoken.” Rovin v. State, 488 Md. 144, 219 (2024) (quoting Abbott v. State, 190 Md. App. 595, 615, 620 (2010)). In certain contexts where First Amendment interests are implicated, courts “ha[ve] an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record’” to ensure that “the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984) (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 284-86 (1964)). Here, appellant is challenging only whether the evidence was sufficient to find that his statements in the book constituted a true threat. Because a true threat is not constitutionally protected speech, and it involves a determination that requires only “‘ordinary principles of logic and common experience’ rather than legal judgment,” United States v. Hunt, 82 F.4th 129, 136 (2d Cir. 2023), de novo review by this Court is not necessary. The appropriate standard of review to apply in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that appellant made a true threat is the traditional sufficiency of the evidence standard, giving deference to the findings of the circuit court judge as the fact finder. The evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction under CR § 3-1001. The statements in appellant’s book, “I want to shoot up my school” and “This gun is going to change lives tomorrow,” when viewed in context with appellant’s expressed desire to engage in a school shooting and his statements that his writing was based on his own thoughts and experiences, permitted a reasonable inference that appellant was going to act on his expressed desire to commit a school shooting. The evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s finding that appellant’s communications were a true threat. Recklessness is the minimum constitutionally required mens rea that the State must prove in true threats cases. Counterman, 600 U.S at 74. Here, the General Assembly has expressly stated that knowledge is the required mens rea for a conviction under CR § 3- 1001. Accordingly, the State was required to show a mens rea of “knowingly” to properly convict appellant of making a true threat. The evidence supported the court’s finding that appellant understood that his statements regarding wanting to engage in a school shooting would be taken as a threat, particularly because the recipient expressed concern that appellant would act on his homicidal impulses. The evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s finding that appellant sent the communication knowing that Maxwell would perceive the words in the book as a threat. Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. C-15-CR-24-000665 REPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND No. 709 September Term, 2025 ______________________________________ ANDREA YE v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Graeff, Zic, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Graeff, J. ______________________________________ Filed: October 28, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.10.28 '00'04- 15:31:58 Gregory Hilton, Clerk  On January 8, 2025, Andrea “Alex” Ye,1 appellant, was convicted of making a threat of mass violence in violation of Maryland Code, Criminal Law § 3-1001, after a two-day bench trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The court sentenced appellant to 10 years of incarceration, all but 12 months suspended, with five years of supervised probation. On October 14, 2025, the court reduced the unsuspended portion of the sentence to 140 days. On appeal, appellant presents two questions for this Court’s review,2 which we have consolidated and rephrased slightly, as follows: Was the evidence legally sufficient to convict appellant of making a threat of mass violence under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (“CR”) § 3- 1001 (2021 Repl. Vol.)? 1 Appellant uses male pronouns and goes by the name “Alex.” 2 Appellant presents the following questions for review: 1. Whether speech is a constitutionally unprotected “true threat” depends on its language, context, and likely effect on an objectively reasonable recipient familiar with the context in which it was communicated. Was the evidence sufficient to establish a “true threat” where Appellant privately transmitted his manuscript to solicit writing feedback from two trusted friends, both of whom understood it was a work of fiction? 2. To establish that Appellant acted “knowingly,” the State must prove recklessness—that Appellant communicated his message with a conscious disregard that it would be viewed as threatening violence. Was the evidence sufficient to establish that Appellant acted recklessly?  For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The charged offense in this case arose from the opening paragraph of a book that appellant wrote and sent via electronic messaging to two friends on March 3, 2024.3 The opening lines of the 129-page book stated: “I want to shoot up my school. I’ve been preparing for it for the past few months.” The next couple of lines discussed an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and then stated: “This gun is going to change lives tomorrow.” The next couple of paragraphs of the book explained that the protagonist, a Chinese- American, transgender teen named James Wang, wanted to be a mass shooter to “have fun, get a bit of fame and glory before I die, and not be forgotten.” The book stated that the protagonist had looked at his classmates and pictured himself hunting them down, picked the classrooms that were the easiest targets, and would carry out his plan tomorrow. One of the people to whom he sent the book, Maxwell, who had engaged in prior conversations with appellant about appellant’s homicidal ideations regarding a school shooting, called the police after reading the first few pages of the book. Police responded and investigated the incident, obtaining a search warrant for appellant’s home, phone records, social media history, and internet search history. At the time, appellant was a student at Wootton High School (“Wootton”), but he was enrolled in virtual school after The Instagram messages show that appellant sent Maxwell the book at 12:46 a.m. 3 on March 3, 2024. 2 expressing suicidal and homicidal ideations, including “some rather intense homicidal ideation around a school shooting,” and the school had issued a no-trespass order. On April 16, 2024, the police arrested appellant, and he was later charged with one count of knowingly threatening to commit a crime of mass violence under CR § 3-1001(b). On December 9, 2024, a two-day bench trial began in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. I. Trial Testimony A. Corporal Jessica Rogers On March 3, 2024, Corporal Rogers, a member of the Rockville City Police Department, received a call regarding a report that appellant had “made mentions of some sort of a school shooting.” At approximately 2:26 p.m., Corporal Rogers and her partner, Office Thrasher, went to appellant’s home. Corporal Rogers asked appellant if he had mentioned “shooting up a school, wanting to harm himself, [or] harm anybody else.” Appellant stated that he did not want to harm himself or anybody else, and he did not make any threats against his school. Appellant told Corporal Rogers that he did not have access to any weapons. Corporal Rogers did not go inside to confirm there were no weapons in the house. Corporal Rogers then spoke to appellant about his book, which appellant described as a story about “events leading up to [an individual] being placed in [a] psychiatric hospital,” including the “mention of a school shooting.” Appellant sent the story to two 3 individuals, one who Corporal Rogers said was unnamed, the second who went by Maxwell. Corporal Rogers did not follow up with the unnamed person who received the book.4 Appellant and his father both told Corporal Rogers that the book was fiction. Appellant stated that the setting of the book was late 2022 to early 2023, and he planned to publish it. Corporal Rogers suggested that, “due to the nature of [the book],” appellant should note at the beginning that it was fiction to avoid any miscommunication. Corporal Rogers did not read the book. B. Sergeant Justin Saffar Sergeant Saffar, supervisor of the Montgomery County Police Behavioral Assessment Unit, testified that his unit handled and investigated “all school threats, bomb threats, [and] threats to the general public.” In December 2023, Douglas Nelson, the principal of Wootton, contacted Sergeant Saffar “to be part of a behavioral assessment.” A behavioral assessment involves a collaboration of school officials, non-school officials, police, and school resources officers to address students who pose a threat or danger to the community. In January 2024, a behavioral assessment meeting took place to determine whether appellant, who was under a no-trespass order due to prior disclosures of homicidal ideation, could return to school in-person. Appellant was not permitted to return to the Wootton 4 As discussed, infra, an individual named Kierstan was the second recipient of the book. 4 campus at that time because the assessment team wanted additional information from appellant’s parents before making a decision. Between January and March of 2024, Sergeant Saffar continued to receive updates from the school and monitor appellant’s behavior. On March 3, 2024, the Rockville City Police notified Sergeant Saffar of a critical alert incident involving a student who had written a book indicating a plan to shoot up a school. Sergeant Saffar immediately recognized appellant’s name as “someone that MCPS . . . considered an elevated threat.” Sergeant Saffar contacted Maxwell the next morning to obtain additional information, and based on that information, he began drafting a search warrant. The search warrant was for appellant’s Google account, and it included any written documents in the Google Drive from March 1, 2024, to March 4, 2024. Appellant’s book, admitted over objection as an exhibit, was among the records obtained from Google. Sergeant Saffar testified that he read through the entire document. The book recovered from Google included an author’s note at the top, stating: This is a work of fiction. All the names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents in this book are either the product of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. This is not a threat of violence, nor does it represent the author’s beliefs. Sergeant Saffar was not able to access prior versions or history of the document. Sergeant Saffar also obtained 2,200 pages of records from Instagram pursuant to the search warrants. He testified to similarities between the book’s narrator and appellant’s life, including the narrator’s transgender identity, race, disclosures to the school counselor, prior hospitalizations and an escape attempt, God complex, and thoughts of shooting 5 children. Multiple comments in appellant’s Instagram posts pertained to media attention. Appellant stated that “killing random people gets more attention in the media,” and he wanted “to glow up other shooters who were not attractive in their [publicized] pictures.” Appellant’s Instagram records indicated that he considered his book to be an autobiography. Sergeant Saffar next discussed his review of the Google records he obtained related to internet searches appellant conducted from March 1, 2024, to March 4, 2024. Appellant had searched for written descriptions of an AR-15, “[w]hat an AR[-15] sounds like,” the minimum age for entrance to a gun range, and information on previous school shooters. A much broader investigation of appellant’s Google history revealed searches for targets of mass violence events and additional school shooters, including Aiden Hill, a transgender shooter in Tennessee, and Nikolas Cruz, from the Parkland, Florida shooting. Appellant also searched for “Salad Days,” a reference to the song Nikolas Cruz listened to during the Parkland shooting. The song originated from Shakespeare, related to making youthful decisions, and had become “kind of a rallying cry or a song that other wannabe school shooters listen to.” Another Google search appellant conducted was for a book called “Forgive Me, Leonard Peacock” by Matthew Quick, “a book about a high school student who shoots his best friend, and then plans on shooting himself.” Sergeant Saffar testified that “essentially every school shooting you can name [wa]s somewhere in [appellant’s] history during the extended search.” 6  Sergeant Saffar next discussed the records obtained related to appellant’s Discord app.5 Appellant was a member of several Discord chat groups that discussed and offered to share photos from the Columbine shooting, and he requested to be invited to the “TC Group,” which law enforcement interpreted to mean the “Trench Coat” group, a reference to the coats the Columbine shooters wore. Sergeant Saffar explained the trench coat was “one of those kind of legacy tokens that shooters gravitate towards as wannabe or copycats,” and law enforcement considered the Columbine anniversary in deciding when to charge appellant. The police charged appellant once there was “enough evidence to charge him.” The search of appellant’s iPhone revealed a map of Wootton and the image of “a stick figure drawing of people being shot at by a subject with a gun.” The images said “me and you,” and the images labeled “you” appeared to be “deceased stick figures.” Sergeant Saffar did not know who took the photographs of the map or of the stick figure drawing, when they were taken, or if they were sent to appellant by someone else. Documents from the hard drive of appellant’s computer, as well as journals, notebooks, and newspaper clippings from his home, were also obtained pursuant to a search warrant. One of the notebooks was like a scrap book and contained ripped out newspaper clippings of “generally violent things,” including drownings, abortion, and numerous school shootings. There were also political clippings, LGBTQ articles, and cut outs of cartoon newspaper articles in the scrap book. Discord is a social media app “where people communicate most often about video 5 games” and other topics. 7  The journals also contained lists of novel ideas and discussions that appellant wanted to write a novel. In several journals, there were “bucket list goals,” which stated “publish novel” and “publish a book.” Sergeant Saffar participated in behavioral assessment meetings with the school system to implement mitigation strategies during the investigation and after appellant was arrested. Appellant was not arrested until 44 days after the police became aware of the writing at issue in this case. Sergeant Saffar acknowledged that appellant never committed any type of school shooting, nor did James Wang, the narrator in appellant’s book. He also acknowledged that James Wang did not injure anyone in the book or attempt to shoot anyone in the book. Sergeant Saffar agreed that the majority of appellant’s book described James Wang’s “journey from hospitalization to his release [from] hospitalization.” After reviewing the book to refresh his recollection, Sergeant Saffar stated that, based on passages about a New Year’s Eve party and James Wang’s hospitalization, appellant’s book was set in 2022 and ended in 2023. Sergeant Saffar next testified regarding differences between the book and appellant’s real life. For example, in the book, police found an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle gun case in the bedroom of James Wang’s parents, but no firearm was ever found in appellant’s house.6 6 The police did not search the entirety of appellant’s home. They searched his parent’s closet with consent, but they did not check under the bed or other places in their bedroom. 8  Defense counsel went through the book chapter by chapter with Sergeant Saffar. At the end of Chapter One, James Wang states: “I’m starting to think that this is a bad idea.”7 At the beginning of Chapter Two, he states: “I’m filled with doubt as the sun rises,” and “I don’t know if I really want to go through with my plan.” James Wang then decides to go see the school counselor in hopes that “a counselor can help save [him] from [his] thoughts” and “help [him] not think this way.” By the end of Chapter Two, James Wang is hospitalized, but he has been “isolated after some incidents.” In Chapters Three through Nine, James Wang continues his hospitalization, he introduces several new characters from the hospital, and he describes his first kiss and sexual experience. In Chapter 10, James Wang contemplates suicide and begins hiding pills in his mouth to collect for an overdose. At one point, he states: “I might have anger issues because I want to find a doctor and shoot a bullet through his brain. Maybe normal people don’t think this way.” After hospital staff discover pills in James Wang’s room, he is put in an isolation room, attempts to escape the facility, and is eventually injected with medication. The book continues with discussions between James Wang and a staff member about his mental thoughts, frustrations, and coping mechanisms, including boxing. James Wang eventually returns to the group from isolation and resumes group activities. 7 The rest of that paragraph, however, states: I can’t back out. My brain tells me to imagine all the kids that will lose their friends, all the good people that will die. I want to scream. Another part of me urges that it will be so much fun and lots of people die any day anyway. I wouldn’t even be torturing them. In fact, I’d be merciful to give them a quick death. I bite my lip so hard it bleeds. Blood is what I’ll be smelling tomorrow. 9  In Chapter 13, there are discussions between James Wang and his doctor, and then there is a family meeting. Investigators in the book had recovered a firearm from James Wang’s locker. A fight breaks out between James Wang and another patient and James returns to isolation. At the end of the chapter, two of his friends leave the hospital, and hospital staff confiscate the paper with the friends’ contact information. James becomes violent again and is administered an injection to sedate him. As the book continues, James believes that he is Jesus, which was similar to the police findings about appellant. After a clergyman visited James Wang at the hospital, James states: “I’m starting to think I may not be Jesus.” James then discusses possible step-down residential facilities with a staff member. He learns of a shooting at an elementary school: “How many people are killed, [he] asked excited?” In Chapter 17, James Wang is taken by EMT to a residential facility and meets a new character named Hannah. He gets his cellphone back and begins texting friends and conducting internet searches of school shootings, as well as the March for Our Lives website. The next day, he attends a residential day program. When Hannah drives James back to the group home, he thinks: “Kill her, kill her, kill her. I have a hard time shutting up the thoughts, but I tell myself not to do it. She’s a nice person.” James Wang does not kill anyone in the book. In the last chapter, during a walk with Hannah, James Wang discusses his college essays and “the struggles that he’s had with thoughts of school shootings.” He contemplates giving advice to other “kids that have similar thoughts” and telling “them that it’s a bad idea.” James Wang eventually leaves the residential program. In the last paragraph of the book, it states: 10  I think about how last year, I was dead set on shooting up my school. Now, I really don’t want to do that anymore. Of course, I still get violent thoughts sometimes, but I realize that I’ll really fuck up my life and the lives of those harmed if I act on them. I have bigger dreams that I don’t want to mess up. I want to become a politician, go to college, spend time with friends, read more books, play sports, explore new places, and stay out of prison. Everyone else also has things that they want to do and things that they care about, and it’ll be a total asshole move to come out with an AR-15 and mow them down. I hope that I live a good life. And I hope that I don’t kill anyone. Sergeant Saffar explained that appellant was charged based on the content of the book as evaluated in the totality of the circumstances. The Instagram and Discord records, Google searches, and appellant’s admissions of having an “evil” plan and being “unethical” and “selfish,” when considered together, indicated that appellant “was someone who was making a threat of mass violence, and was telling people that he had a plan.”8 C. Nicole Fuller Nicole Fuller, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), assisted Sergeant Saffar in the investigation of appellant. She assisted with the review of extractions from four electronic devices seized pursuant to the search warrant, including one cell phone, two laptops, and an iPad. Ms. Fuller verified that text messages, browsing history, and Google searches introduced as evidence by the State were fair representations of the data retrieved from appellant’s devices. The court overruled defense counsel’s 8 Appellant argues that some of these records were not relevant to the issue here, but he did not raise as an issue on appeal that the court erred in admitting them. 11 objections to messages referencing appellant’s purchase of a BB gun, finding that appellant’s statement that he “bought a BB gun and told the school therapist [he] was going to pretend to shoot up the school” was relevant to the case. D. Maxwell Maxwell, a senior in high school, first met appellant in January of 2021 or 2022. They interacted in person for approximately one week, and a few weeks later, they met up at a food mall. Later, Maxwell interacted with appellant exclusively online via Instagram. On March 3, 2024, Maxwell called 911 after receiving a Google document through a link sent by Instagram. Maxwell told the police about receipt of a document threatening a school shooting, and Maxwell told the police the name of appellant’s school. During Maxwell’s testimony, the State introduced appellant’s book, marked as State’s Exhibit 1, and Maxwell recognized it from the first line, which read: “I want to shoot up my school.” The remainder of the first paragraph read: I’ve been preparing for it for the past few months. As I sit in front of my dad’s gun case and stare at the sleek, black gun inside, all I can think about is my finger on the trigger, taking aim, and killing people. The gun is an AR- 15 style semi-automatic rifle. It’s the kind of gun with a long barrel and a stock you put up against your shoulder. This gun is going to change lives tomorrow. Maxwell contacted the police after reading only a couple of pages. The fiction disclaimer at the top of the copy of the book that the State introduced into evidence was not in the version that Maxwell received, and if it had been, Maxwell may not have called the police. Maxwell subsequently spoke with an FBI agent and local police. 12  Maxwell did not read the part of the book where the main character went to a mental health facility and no school shooting occurred. An hour or two after contacting police, Maxwell no longer had access to the Google document sent by appellant. The topic of school shootings had come up in previous conversations between Maxwell and appellant. Appellant told Maxwell that he wanted to commit a school shooting and hoped “to gain notoriety from it.” Maxwell testified: I remember specifically he referenced how certain like killers would go to court and people would simp for them or like become attracted to them and he wanted to just become a spectacle like I believe an example he wanted to be like is the Sandy Hook shooters. The State introduced into evidence Instagram messages between Maxwell and appellant, which included a lot of conversations about school shootings. In September 2023, appellant told Maxwell that he wanted to shoot and bomb his school because it seemed fun. In December, he said his homicidal ideation was getting worse, to the point that he might act on it eventually. Appellant said he wanted to “publish a book and promote it.” When Maxwell asked if appellant was really going to do it, appellant said, at one point, that schools were closed, and at another point, that there was no danger because he did not have a gun. When appellant asked if Maxwell was going to report him to the police, Maxwell said that he would not at that point because appellant said he was not going to do it then, but Maxwell was not going to let him commit a mass murder. Maxwell was worried and asked for appellant’s parents’ number. Appellant stated that there were multiple reasons he had not done it yet, mostly because he did not have a gun, but also he did not want to do it before he published a book. 13  Maxwell advised appellant to focus on other goals, and appellant said he wanted to be a published author, but he did not think he was a good writer. Appellant sent a draft of the first paragraph (which did not include the sentence that the gun was going to change lives tomorrow), Maxwell gave some comments, and they agreed that Maxwell would read more when the book was done.9 Appellant said the book was basically based on his life and how he went to the hospital, and because it was from the point of view of an “almost school shooter,” it would be controversial. He said he would “make it ‘fiction’ technically,” so he could talk about the thoughts more. On March 3, 2024, appellant sent Maxwell the book. Maxwell subsequently told appellant on Instagram that the book was “very interesting so far,” and Maxwell asked if appellant was “actually going to do it tho,” asking if he was “gonna shoot up ur school.” Appellant said no and asked Maxwell to give him “feedback on what’s working and what’s not working in the book” because appellant wanted to improve the book. Maxwell texted: “I thought it was real like you were going to shoot it up tomorrow and I was like oh damn, skull emoji.” Appellant responded: “No, it’s all fiction. I don’t even have a 9 Appellant sent Maxwell the following paragraph: I want to shoot up my school. I’ve been preparing for it for the past few months. All I can think about nowadays is my finger on the trigger, taking aim and killing them one by one. Smelling the fresh blood, hearing the wretched screaming, and hearing the deafening boom of my gunshots. I want to see the fear in their wild eyes. I smile just thinking about it. My hands are slick with sweat, jittery, shocks zigzag through my body. I’ll walk through the boring school doors just like anyone else and leave as a villain. 14 gun.” Appellant stated that he was “feeling better” and did not “feel like [committing a mass shooting] anymore.” Maxwell asked appellant about his treatment and what changed.10 Appellant responded: “I changed because I care more about living a better life and becoming a politician and publishing a book, like college and stuff like that so I care more about that than killing people.” Appellant told Maxwell that he had shared his book with one other friend.11 Appellant wanted to share it with “a teen writers group.” He said he would tell most people he shared it with that it was fiction and completely made up. When asked about the timing of events, Maxwell stated that, after thinking about it, the text conversation where appellant said he was not planning on doing a mass shooting anymore was prior to Maxwell contacting the police. Maxwell called the police after receiving the book because Maxwell “thought it was 100 percent a threat.” 10 Maxwell testified that he asked questions because he wanted to be a psychiatrist and “to learn more and like making sure that he’s like telling the truth, that he’s actually getting good treatment.” 11 Appellant sent the book to another friend named Kierstan, whom Maxwell referred to as a “friend from a different psych ward.” Appellant messaged her before sending it, stating: “I wrote a book inspired by my experiences in the psych ward let me know your gmail if you want to read it . . . Ok!! And give me feedback plz on it[.]” Kierstan replied: “ITS SO GOOD . . . I REALLY LIKENIT . . . ITS LIKE READING A GENUINE BOOK.” Appellant told Kierstan he had been working on the book for a year and implored her to “tell me the negatives too if you have any[,] I want to improve the book.” 15  E. Kathryn Omerso Kathryn Omerso, a mental health therapist with the Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital, worked in the Montgomery County Public Schools through the “A Bridge to Wellness” program. The program placed a mental health therapist, care manager, and youth development specialist at Wootton to provide mental health counseling, resources, and support. Ms. Omerso met appellant through the program and made three disclosures to the school administration after meeting with him. Ms. Omerso made the third disclosure in December 2022, based on a therapy session with appellant in which he was agitated, experiencing ongoing suicidal ideation, but also “now homicidal ideation.” After appellant shared his ideations, Ms. Omerso continued her assessment to gather information in support of a disclosure, including whether appellant had a plan, means to carry out a plan, and specifics regarding his “thoughts and ideations.” Ms. Omerso determined that appellant had “intense homicidal ideation around a school shooting,” and she notified the school administration, school social worker, and appellant’s parents. Ms. Omerso called ahead to a hospital to ensure that appellant “got to a higher level of care.” On cross-examination, Ms. Omerso acknowledged that, in March 2024, she had not had any contact with appellant for more than a year. She had not “read the content of the book at issue.” 16  F. Douglas Nelson Douglas Nelson was the principal of Wootton when appellant was a student there. In December 2022, Mr. Nelson learned of an issue with appellant from Ms. Omerso and the assistant principal who “was working on that threat.” The administration convened a behavior threat assessment team. In January 2023, the chief of safety and security issued a “no trespass order” to appellant. The order was issued via a system-wide letter “to ensure that [appellant] was not permitted on MCPS property.” In December 2022, the behavior threat assessment team deemed appellant a moderate to high threat, which required Mr. Nelson to contact the Central Office and involve the Department of Psychological Services, the Office of School Safety, and emergency management. A “cross-functional team” in the Montgomery County Public School system also was brought in to manage the threat. The behavior threat assessment process continued from 2022 until appellant graduated in 2024. In March 2024, Sergeant Saffar contacted Mr. Nelson to inform him of the book written by appellant and sent to Maxwell. Mr. Nelson convened the central behavior threat assessment team, which implemented heightened monitoring at Wootton, including sharing appellant’s pictures, watching entrances, and having additional security staff present on campus. Mr. Nelson also alerted the cluster principals at the middle and elementary schools, who took similar steps to increase security, including the circulation of a school resource officer to appellant’s elementary school. The team increased appellant’s risk level to high after learning of his book because it was concerned that 17 “within the written document could possibly be a plan.” Heightened security measures continued until the end of the school year in 2024. On cross-examination, Mr. Nelson acknowledged that he had “not personally read the writing that was referred to by police,” and it was never provided to him. Although he was concerned about appellant having a plan, he did not know whether the book actually contained a plan to carry out a school shooting, but Sergeant Saffar alerted him “to the fact that this was a concern.” Mr. Nelson testified that, between the beginning of March 2024 through the end of April 2024, appellant never came to Wootton and never attempted to conduct a school shooting. II. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the State’s case, arguing that the State had not met its burden to submit the case to the fact finder. Appellant argued that Maxwell’s testimony, as well as the book itself, showed that appellant did not plan to carry out a school shooting. The book was set in the past, described the narrator’s decision not to commit a shooting, and focused on his mental health treatment journey, and therefore, there was no indication of an imminent or future threat. Appellant asserted that the writing did not “rise to the level of [a] true threat,” which was demonstrated by Instagram messages in which appellant stated he did not intend to “shoot up the school,” and the school’s response was “based off a book that they didn’t even read” or have “access to.” 18  The State responded that it met its burden to establish a prima facie case that appellant violated the statute criminalizing threats of mass violence. It argued that the statute did not require “completion . . . of a crime” or “even an attempt to commit”; it merely required a threat. The State asserted that appellant’s book, sent to others on March 3, 2024, established the existence of a true threat because it contained details indicating that the narrator, whose life paralleled appellant’s, had a plan to shoot up the school. The State contended that the writing must be considered “in the context of all the other threats and statements that [appellant] had made to others,” as well as his search history. The State argued that appellant was aware that his writing could be perceived as a threat, and therefore, it proved the required mental state of recklessness because he published it “consciously disregard[ing] a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” The court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal, concluding that the State had made a prima facie case based on the evidence presented. Appellant did not testify or present any evidence on his behalf. Appellant then renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court ultimately denied, finding that the evidence and all reasonable inferences were legally sufficient for consideration by the finder of fact. III. Verdict On January 8, 2025, the court