Lee Carrell v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 785
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Carrell was convicted after a bench trial of simple assault and threats to do bodily harm; he appeals only the threats conviction challenging evidentiary sufficiency and the need for an explicit intent-to-threat finding.
- The January 2012 incidents involved an intoxicated confrontation with Ringenburg, including violent physical contact and threats during the incidents.
- During the morning episode, Carrell choked Ringenburg, pushed her to the rug, and covered her nose and mouth while shouting statements implying he could kill her.
- Ringenburg testified she feared for her life; Carrell disputed the specific physical acts and certain statements, noting prior arguments included breaking objects.
- The trial judge credited Ringenburg’s testimony, found the elements of both offenses satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and held the words uttered constituted a threat in context.
- Carrell argued the court did not make an explicit finding on intent to threaten, and that Baish-type intent requirements control; the issue was raised on appeal and resolved through plain error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the threat element proven beyond a reasonable doubt? | Carrell argues insufficient evidence to prove a threat. | Carrell contends the words need not have been uttered with intent to threaten under Baish. | Yes; evidence upheld the threat element under the court's context-based analysis. |
| Must the trial court explicitly find intent-to-threat on the record? | Carrell asserts lack of explicit finding requires reversal. | Carrell argues the absence of explicit findings warrants reversal or remand. | No error; plain error review shows no reversible error given record and findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Postell v. United States, 282 A.2d 551 (D.C.1971) (gist: words must convey menace or fear to ordinary hearer)
- Gurley v. United States, 308 A.2d 785 (D.C.1973) (early articulation of threats elements and context)
- Campbell v. United States, 450 A.2d 428 (D.C.1982) (elements: uttered words, convey fear, intended utterance of those words)
- United States v. Baish, 460 A.2d 38 (D.C.1983) (adds requirement that defendant intended to utter words as a threat)
- Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026 (D.C.2000) (contextual analysis; threats depend on circumstances; issue of intent discussed)
- Jenkins v. United States, 902 A.2d 79 (D.C.2006) (reaffirms need to consider intent to threaten within context)
- In re S.W., 45 A.3d 151 (D.C.2012) (contextual First Amendment considerations; true threats require contextual analysis)
- Holt v. United States, 565 A.2d 970 (D.C.1989) (en banc: threats statute lacks explicit intent element; controls analysis)