Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Stanley

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided April 5, 2007No. 04CA2164Published

1Concurrence

Judge VOGT

specially concurring.

I agree with the majority that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed, but I reach that conclusion for reasons other than those relied on by the majority.

In my view, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003), requires a showing that defendant subjectively intended to make a threat in order for his conviction to pass constitutional muster. Under Block as I read it, speech may not be constitutionally punished simply because a reasonable person would understand it as a threat, if the speaker did not mean for the speech to be so…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Virginia v. BlackSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. United States v. Robert D. Stewart, Jr., AKA Robert Wilson Stewart, Bob StewartCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  3. United States v. Paul Kent CasselCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. New York Ex Rel. Spitzer v. CainDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  5. United States v. MaglebyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005

1 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