Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. BassSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.