Fryar v. Sanders

How courts have described this case

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

• indictment “accused Smith of committing terroristic threats specifically by threatening to commit aggravated assault with the purpose of terrorizing the salon’s owner and one of the customers”
• indictment “accused Smith of committing terroristic threats specifically by threatening to commit aggravated assault with the purpose of terrorizing the salon’s owner and one of the customers”
• indictment “accused Smith of committing terroristic threats specifically by threatening to commit aggravated assault with the purpose of terrorizing the salon’s owner and one of the customers”
• “[T]he State was required to prove two essential elements: (1) that Smith threatened the victims with aggravated assault and (2) that he acted with the purpose of terrorizing them.” (emphasis added)
• “[T]he State was required to prove two essential elements: (1) that Smith threatened the victims with aggravated assault and (2) that he acted with the purpose of terrorizing them.” (emphasis added)
• “[T]he State was required to prove two essential elements: (1) that Smith threatened the victims with aggravated assault and (2) that he acted with the purpose of terrorizing them.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).