Coats (Damon) Vs. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that defendant “need not have known that he was barred from possessing firearms or ammunition” to be convicted of violating § 922(g)(8) but need only be aware that he was “subject to a qualifying court order”
• explaining that Rehaif does not require proving that the defendant knew his relevant status prohibited him from possessing a firearm under § 922(g) but only that the defendant knew that “he had the relevant status when he possessed it” (quoting Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2194)
• denial of a motion for acquittal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).