Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided August 3, 2017No. 12-CM-523Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThompson, Associate Judge

I agree with my colleagues’ conclusion that proof of the mens rea element of misdemeanor threats to do bodily harm under D.C. Code § 22-407 (2016 Supp.), or of felony threatening to injure the person of another under D.C. Code § 22-1810 (2016 Supp.),1 requires more than evidence that the defendant intended to utter the words that constitute the threat. I also agree that proof that “the defendant acted with the purpose to threaten or with knowledge that his words would be perceived as a threat[,]” ante, at 317, 324, 325, will satisfy the mens rea required for conviction. However, I believe the…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. United States v. BassSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API