State v. Van Atkins

¶1 Phillip Atkins appeals his judgment and sentence, claiming that the information and “to convict” *803instruction for his felony harassment charge were deficient because crime. Because “true threat” is not an essential element of this charge and the court’s instructions included an explanation of that term, we reject this claim.

¶2 Atkins also argues that the knowledge instruction for third degree assault given in this case created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption. We agree but conclude that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶3 Atkins also claims that the State did not meet…