State v. Finnel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding defendant knew his contact with victim would be offensive to her; record showed victim had previously obtained a restraining order against the defendant
• holding the element of intent is seldom susceptible to proof by direct evidence but depends on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence
• inferring intent to commit an assault from violent, nonconsensual entry, knowledge that victim wanted no contact with defendant, prior threats of violence, and assaultive actions after entry
• noting intent may be inferred from a defendant’s acts preceding and following an unauthorized entry
• “[T]he question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is no different from the question of what punishments the legislature intended to be imposed.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).