Robert Lyonell Phillips v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the statutory language only requires making a threat
• explaining that the statutory language only requires making a threat
• analyzing the terroristic threat statute—not the retaliation statute—when reciting the rule that, “The focus of the intent inquiry is on the intended reaction.”
• explaining that the statutory language only requires making a threat
• upholding conviction for coercion of a public servant based on evidence that defendant communicated oral threat to dispatcher (a “public servant”) that he would inflict felonious bodily injury on a police officer (another “public servant”
• upholding conviction for coercion of a public servant based on evidence that defendant communicated oral threat to dispatcher (a “public servant”) that he would inflict felonious bodily injury on a police officer (another “public servant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).