State v. Schweppe

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a victim’s reaction to a threat was circumstantial evidence relevant to the intent element of a terroristic-threats charge
• stating that threatened killing was a “crime of violence” under homicide statutes then in effect
• stating that “[t]he effect of a terroristic threat on the victim is not an essential element of the statutory offense”
• stating that a “victim’s reaction to [a] threat [is] circumstantial evidence relevant to the element of intent of the defendant in making the threat.”
• stating that a victim’s reaction is circumstantial evidence relevant to the defendant’s intent in making the threatening statement
• explaining that words must be considered in light of the context in which they were used to assess whether they were threatening

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).