How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Roger Your Own Question

Roger
Roger, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 25986
Experience:  BV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell; SuperLawyer rating by West
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Roger is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I have been charged with terroristic threatening 5-13-301

Resolved Question:

I have been charged with terroristic threatening 5-13-301 I did talk a lot of trash to these people but made no specific threat I need case law to support my motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. and the relevant excerpt from the case
Submitted: 9 months ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Roger replied 9 months ago.

Roger : Hi - my name is XXXXX XXXXX X'X a Criminal Law litigation attorney. Thanks for your question and I'll be glad to assist.
Roger : I will be glad to provide you with the annotations from the statute, which will provide information on any case that has been reported regarding this statute.
Roger : Constitutionality.The mere overlapping of the provisions of this section and the assault statutes does not render this section unconstitutional. Warren v. State, 272 Ark. 231, 613 S.W.2d 97 (1981).Communication of Threat.There is no language in the statute indicating the threat must be communicated by the accused directly to the person threatened to constitute a violation. Richards v. State, 266 Ark. 733, 585 S.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1979).
Roger : The conduct prohibited by this section is the communication of threat with the purpose of terrorizing another. It is not necessary that the recipient of the threat actually be terrorized. Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451, 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988).It would defy common sense to maintain that threatening to punch a woman hard enough to kill her unborn child does not carry with it a threat to cause serious physical injury to the woman personally. Hagen v. State, 47 Ark. App. 137, 886 S.W.2d 889 (1994).Defendant's conviction for first-degree terroristic threatening pursuant to subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section could not stand because there was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that it was defendant's conscious object that his threatening statements, made to his girlfriend, be communicated to the victim, his former wife. Turner v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 214, -- S.W.3d -- (2010), review denied, -- Ark. --, -- S.W.3d --, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 258 (May 6, 2010).Defenses.The fact that a threat is conditioned in such a way as is calculated to coerce another person to abstain from a course of action he has a legal right to pursue is not a valid defense. Richards v. State, 266 Ark. 733, 585 S.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1979).Because terroristic threatening requires a purposeful mental state, the defense of voluntary intoxication is available to a defendant charged with such crime. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).The defendant in a prosecution for terroristic threatening was required to show that he was incapacitated by drinking alcohol -- not merely that he drank alcohol -- to obtain an instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).Trial court did not err in sustaining state's objection that the terms of the civil dispute regarding a loan and the collateral for the loan were irrelevant and in refusing to permit defendant to question the victim concerning the property that had been collateral for the loan because, even if the victim had lied regarding the terms of the loan, that would be no defense to the crimes for which he was convicted, which included kidnapping, terroristic threatening, and aggravated assault. Tarpley v. State, 97 Ark. App. 122, 245 S.W.3d 192 (2006).Evidence.Evidence held sufficient to support the conviction. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984); Jones v. State, 72 Ark. App. 271, 35 S.W.3d 345, 2000 Ark. App. LEXIS 806 (2000).Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction where the victim, who was the defendant's stepdaughter, testified that the defendant raped her and told her not to tell anyone or he would beat her. Johnson v. State, 71 Ark. App. 58, 25 S.W.3d 445 (2000).Where the victim testified that defendant threatened to kill her, a witness corroborated the victim's testimony, and defendant's threats had been reported to officers, the erroneous admission of the unavailable officer's testimony was harmless as to the offense of first-degree terroristic threatening, subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section. Proctor v. State, 349 Ark. 648, 79 S.W.3d 370 (2002).Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of terroristic threatening where the jury could infer from the circumstances that defendant's intent was to terrorize his ex-wife; it was not necessary that the ex-wife actually be frightened by defendant's threat as the proscribed conduct was defendant's intent to cause her fright. Crowder-Jones v. State, -- Ark. App. --, -- S.W.3d --, 2003 Ark. App. LEXIS 887 (Dec. 10, 2003).Evidence presented supported a conviction of first-degree terroristic threatening where defendant threatened to killboth the kidnapping victim and his girlfriend and to blow up their house if the victim did not later return to defendant's home with more money. Carter v. State, 360 Ark. 266, 200 S.W.3d 906 (2005), vacated, Carter v. Arkansas,XXXXX 65, 163 L. Ed. 2d 32 (U.S. 2005).Evidence that the victim was in a fight, was being forced out of the house, was threatened with death, and pleaded for her life constituted substantial evidence in support of defendant's conviction for first-degree terroristic threatening because there was substantial evidence that the necessary threat was made, as well as an intent that the victim be terrorized by the threat. Mason v. State, 361 Ark. 357, 206 S.W.3d 869 (2005).Offense of terroristic threatening required no more than the communication of a threat - by word or deed - with the purpose of terrorizing the victim, and the offense of aggravated assault was accomplished when defendant displayed the gun and pointed it at the victim; given the testimony that defendant kept the doorway blocked for several minutes after performing those acts and that the victim was prevented from summoning assistance during that time, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the kidnapping conviction. Tarpley v. State, 97 Ark. App. 122, 245 S.W.3d 192 (2006).While defendant was staying with his girlfriend's family, he engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with the homeowner and his brother; during the melee, defendant pointed a gun at the victims, threatened to kill them, broke the kitchen window, and repeatedly struck the sliding-glass door. The Court of Appeals of Arkansas held that sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for first-degree terroristic threatening in violation of subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section; the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to show that defendant's purpose in wielding the gun was to terrorize both victims. Mullins v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 570, -- S.W.3d -- (2009).State produced evidence that defendant pointed a gun at the victim and indicated more than one time that he would kill her, and the natural and probable result of such acts was that the person toward whom they were directed would be filled with intense fright; the state produced substantial evidence to support a finding that defendant acted with the intent of terrorizing the victim. Lasker v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 591, -- S.W.3d -- (2009).Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for second-degree terroristic threatening in violation of subdivision (b)(1) of this section because the victim's testimony that defendant said, "Give me the gun, I'll shoot him," constituted sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Sims v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 133, -- S.W.3d -- (2010).Pregnant wife's testimony that appellant pushed and threatened her -- causing red marks on her neck and arm -- was sufficient to prove by a preponderance that appellant violated the conditions of his suspended sentence by committing the criminal offenses of domestic battery in third degree, pursuant to § 5-26-305(b)(2)(A), and terroristic threatening in the second degree, under subdivision (b)(1) of this section. Autrand v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 245, -- S.W.3d -- (2010).Evidence was sufficient to revoke defendant's suspended sentences due to his violation of conditions by second-degree terroristic threatening because the victim testified that defendant threatened to "get" her, which she interpreted as a threat to kill her. Brown v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 336, -- S.W.3d -- (2010).As defendant hit the victim (his ex-wife's mother) in the head with the baseball bat and cut the victim's throat, threatened his ex-wife, and forced her to go with him from the scene of the crime, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and terroristic threatening under §§ 5-10-102(a)(2), 5-11-102(a), and subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section. Alvard v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 160, -- S.W.3d -- (2011).Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of terroristic threatening because a dispatcher testified that the dispatcher received a 911 call from defendant's wife regarding a domestic disturbance; the wife said that defendant choked her and threatened to kill her and "take her out." Mathis v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 285, -- S.W.3d -- (2012).Notwithstanding testimony that the alleged victim of terroristic threatening was a heavy drinker whose personality and memory changed when she was under the influence, the jury was entitled to believe the victim's testimony that defendant threatened to kill her if she reported that he had raped her and that she was scared to report the crime due to defendant's threat, particularly where there was testimony by another that defendant had admitted to having threatened the victim that he would kill her if she told anyone about the rape. The believability of the victim was a function for the jury as the fact-finder, not the reviewing court. Harris v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 651, -- S.W.3d --, 2012 Ark. App. LEXIS 765 (Nov. 14, 2012).
Roger : Insufficent.Evidence was insufficient to sustain defendant's juvenile adjudication for terroristic threatening in the first degree; the appellate court found that a hit list found by a teacher in defendant's school notebook was not sufficient to find that he had the "purpose of terrorizing another." Roberts v. State, 78 Ark. App. 103, 78 S.W.3d 743 (2002).--Sufficient.Evidence that two independent witnesses stated that they heard defendant threaten the victims, telling the victims defendant would find out where the victims lived and kill them, and that defendant's objective was to frighten the victims with death or serious injury by threatening them, was sufficient to support a conviction for terroristic threatening in the first degree under subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section. Tatum v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 80, 381 S.W.3d 124 (2011).Defendant's convictions for residential burglary and terroristic threatening, in violation of § 5-39-201(a) and subdivision (b)(1) of this section were supported by sufficient evidence, as he entered his ex-wife residence with the intent or purpose of assaulting her or of threatening either her or her boyfriend. Cash v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 493, -- S.W.3d -- (2011).Fright.Under this section, it is an element of the offense that the defendant act with the purpose of terrorizing another person, i.e., it must be his "conscious object" to cause fright. Knight v. State, 25 Ark. App. 353, 758 S.W.2d 12 (1988).To be found guilty of threatening, the defendant must intend to fill the victim with intense fright. Knight v. State, 25 Ark. App. 353, 758 S.W.2d 12 (1988).Jury Instructions.In defendant's trial for rape and terroristic threatening in the first degree in violation of subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section, in which the victim testified that after defendant raped her for the first time, he told her if she said anything about the rape he would kill her, the evidence did not authorize a jury instruction on the offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree. Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 19, 386 S.W.3d 413 (2012).Length of Threat.There is no language in this section which requires terrorizing over a prolonged period of time. Warren v. State, 272 Ark. 231, 613 S.W.2d 97 (1981); Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).Separate Offenses.Where the evidence displayed defendant's impulse to kidnap the victim and additional impulses to batter and threaten to kill her when she resisted the kidnapping, convictions for the separate offenses of first-degree terroristic threatening, second-degree battery ( § 5-13-202), and attempted kidnapping ( § 5-3-201) were upheld because defendant's criminal acts were not all part of the attempted kidnapping and were not a continuing course of conduct. Hagen v. State, 318 Ark. 139, 883 S.W.2d 832 (1994).Trial court did not err in determining that consecutive sentencing for aggravated robbery, § 5-12-103(a)(1), first-degree terroristic threatening, under subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section, and second-degree battery, § 5-13-202(a)(2), did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy in Ark. Const. Art. 2, § 8 and the Fifth Amendment because neither first-degree terroristic threatening nor second-degree battery was a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery since both crimes required proof of additional facts not required by aggravated robbery; the offense of first-degree terroristic threatening requires the elements of threatening to cause the death of the victim and the purpose of terrorizing the victim, and a conviction for second-degree battery requires proof of purposely causing physical injury to the victim. Walker v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 61, 389 S.W.3d 10 (2012), review denied, -- S.W.3d --, 2012 Ark. LEXIS 95 (Ark. Feb. 23, 2012).Sufficient Threats.The threat to shoot another is a threat to cause such serious physical injury to another person as to constitute terroristic threatening. Richards v. State, 266 Ark. 733, 585 S.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1979).This section criminalizes not only present threats, but future threats as well. Walker v. State, 13 Ark. App. 124, 680 S.W.2d 915, 1984 Ark. App. LEXIS 1909 (1984).Testimony of witnesses to defendant's statements that "he'd kill everyone in the building" was sufficient to sustain his conviction of terroristic threatening. A jury could easily conclude that he meant anyone or all. Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451, 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988).This section does not require that it be shown that the accused has the immediate ability to carry out the threats. Knight v. State, 25 Ark. App. 353, 758 S.W.2d 12 (1988).Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's stalking conviction where there was evidence of terroristic threats to "burn" the victim, along with numerous incidents of harassment, vandalism, and other hostile acts directed toward the victim and her family. Lowry v. State, 90 Ark. App. 333, 205 S.W.3d 830 (2005), rev'd, 364 Ark. 6, 216 S.W.3d 101 (2005).
Roger : Defenses.The fact that a threat is conditioned in such a way as is calculated to coerce another person to abstain from a course of action he has a legal right to pursue is not a valid defense. Richards v. State, 266 Ark. 733, 585 S.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1979).Because terroristic threatening requires a purposeful mental state, the defense of voluntary intoxication is available to a defendant charged with such crime. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).The defendant in a prosecution for terroristic threatening was required to show that he was incapacitated by drinking alcohol -- not merely that he drank alcohol -- to obtain an instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).Trial court did not err in sustaining state's objection that the terms of the civil dispute regarding a loan and the collateral for the loan were irrelevant and in refusing to permit defendant to question the victim concerning the property that had been collateral for the loan because, even if the victim had lied regarding the terms of the loan, that would be no defense to the crimes for which he was convicted, which included kidnapping, terroristic threatening, and aggravated assault. Tarpley v. State, 97 Ark. App. 122, 245 S.W.3d 192 (2006).
Roger : The Defenses to a charge are outlined here:
Expert:  Roger replied 9 months ago.
The defenses in particular are outlined here:

Defenses.

The fact that a threat is conditioned in such a way as is calculated to coerce another person to abstain from a course of action he has a legal right to pursue is not a valid defense. Richards v. State, 266 Ark. 733, 585 S.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1979).

Because terroristic threatening requires a purposeful mental state, the defense of voluntary intoxication is available to a defendant charged with such crime. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).
The defendant in a prosecution for terroristic threatening was required to show that he was incapacitated by drinking alcohol -- not merely that he drank alcohol -- to obtain an instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense. Davis v. State, 12 Ark. App. 79, 670 S.W.2d 472 (1984).

Trial court did not err in sustaining state's objection that the terms of the civil dispute regarding a loan and the collateral for the loan were irrelevant and in refusing to permit defendant to question the victim concerning the property that had been collateral for the loan because, even if the victim had lied regarding the terms of the loan, that would be no defense to the crimes for which he was convicted, which included kidnapping, terroristic threatening, and aggravated assault. Tarpley v. State, 97 Ark. App. 122, 245 S.W.3d 192 (2006).
Customer: replied 9 months ago.

maybe this will help you it is my statement this is a civil case and nothing more, there where many emails to several different people in charge. All of them were either a complaint or a threat to sue them for the way they treated Mr. Wynn and Mrs. Sityar, nothing more. Weyerhaeuser has took one or two emails out of many and used them out of context, and then added their own redderick to have Mr wynn arrested dose this help nothing you sent me applies all I see is your first answer is what the prosecution will more then likely say I need a case law that will back up what I am saying and the relevant excerpt. my motion for dismissal is for lack of evidence

Expert:  Roger replied 9 months ago.
What I provided above is every case that has ever been reported in regard to this statute in the state of Arkansas. There are no other cases out there regarding this statute. I certainly don't know the facts of your case, so I can't say what does and doesn't apply.

But, the biggest thing that appears to me is that there must be proof of a purposeful mental state to terrorize another, which means that there would have to be proof that you purposefully intended to make a threat of this nature, and based on what you said, it doesn't appear that this occurred. That's what Davis v. State case is about.

That appears to be the main defense to this type of charge.

Customer: replied 9 months ago.


davis vs. state send me the relevant excerpt please you now it goes along with it in a motion thank you I will see what I can do with it

Expert:  Roger replied 9 months ago.
The most relevant excerpt is what is above.

However, here's a link to the entire case: http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/doc/175275/Electronic.aspx
Roger, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 25986
Experience: BV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell; SuperLawyer rating by West
Roger and other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
< Last | Next >
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RE/retiredlawyer/2012-6-6_19326_franL.64x64.jpg Fran L.'s Avatar

    Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RA/ratioscripta/2012-6-13_2955_foto3.64x64.jpg Ely's Avatar

    Ely

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    2079
    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/NA/nathanmoorelaw/2011-5-31_21375_headshotbig.64x64.jpg Nate's Avatar

    Nate

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1625
    Over 10 years of criminal defense practice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawTalk/2012-6-6_17379_LawTalk.64x64.JPG LawTalk's Avatar

    LawTalk

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1434
    30 years legal experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PH/philip.simmons/2012-6-7_161915_BIGPhilipSimmons.64x64.jpg P. Simmons's Avatar

    P. Simmons

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1418
    16 yrs. of experience including criminal law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/marshadjd/2009-6-1_194320_marshajd.jpg Marsha411JD's Avatar

    Marsha411JD

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1380
    Licensed attorney with 27 yrs. exp. in criminal law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RO/RobertJDFL/2012-6-6_175352_7538220120606.64x64.jpg RobertJDFL's Avatar

    RobertJDFL

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1300
    Experienced in multiple areas of the law.