2014 Ark. App. 315
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant was convicted by jury of first-degree terroristic threatening in Pope County, Arkansas.
- Threat involved appellant stating, during a phone call, he would kill Judge McCain, the judge assigned to his visitation case.
- Threats were directed at a secretary of the law firm representing him; the secretary testified she was frightened for her safety and for the judge’s safety.
- The jury was allowed to hear testimony that the threat frightened the secretary and the judge, over objection that fright was irrelevant to mens rea.
- The central issue is whether the evidence shows the defendant acted with the purpose to terrorize another person by threatening to cause serious harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a purposeful terrorizing intent | State argues appellant intended to terrorize Maladier. | Appellant contends threats were directed at the judge, not Maladier. | Yes, sufficient to show purpose to terrorize Maladier. |
| Whether Maladier’s testimony about being frightened was admissible | State contends it helps show the victim’s state of mind and relevance. | Defense argues fright is not required, so testimony is irrelevant. | Admissible; court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. State, 360 Ark. 266, 200 S.W.3d 906 (2005) (sufficiency review standard; substantial evidence standard)
- Knight v. State, 25 Ark. App. 353, 758 S.W.2d 12 (1988) (terrorizing may be conveyed by threats against third parties; no precise words required)
- Lowry v. State, 364 Ark. 6, 216 S.W.3d 101 (2005) (relevance of victim’s state of mind; admissibility discretion)