Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version)
2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 211
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Carrell charged with assault and attempted threats after an incident with his ex-girlfriend; trial bench trial; court credited complainant and found Carrell guilty of assault and attempted threats.
- Trial court required proof that Carrell uttered threatening words and that the words would cause belief of harm, but did not require proof of his intent to threaten.
- Court relied on two DC threats statutes (misdemeanor §22-407 and felony §22-1810) that are facially silent on mens rea.
- Supreme Court Elonis v. United States (2015) guided interpretation of mens rea for threats; Elonis requires purposeful or knowledge-based mens rea for the threat element and for the result element.
- En banc court recognized split in precedent about mens rea for threats and held that government must prove that the defendant acted with purpose to threaten or with knowledge that his words would be perceived as a threat; declined to resolve recklessness question and remanded for a proper mens rea finding.
- Procedural posture: en banc review granted after Carrell and division disagreement; remanded to determine mens rea under the opinion's framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What mens rea is required for threats under DC statutes | Carrell: government must prove intent to threaten. | Government argues no mens rea beyond uttering the words; prior split unresolved. | Government must prove purpose or knowledge; remand for proper mens rea finding. |
| Whether recklessness suffices as mens rea for threats | (Carrell) Recklessness should be sufficient; aligns with Elonis on separating wrongful from innocent conduct. | Court should not decide recklessness in this case; defer for another day. | Court declines to decide recklessness here; leaves for future case. |
| Remedy for trial court's misapplication of mens rea framework | Remand to apply correct mens rea standard and issue verdict under proper law. | Remand unnecessary; harmless-error review may suffice. | Remand required to determine if guilt can be sustained under proper mens rea. |
| Preservation and harmless-error standards on review | Carrell preserved sufficiency challenge; plain error not applicable. | Error could be harmless under Chapman standard if it did not affect verdict. | Chapman harmless-error analysis applies; in this record, cannot say error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (held that mens rea for threats includes knowledge/purpose for conduct and result elements)
- Baish, 460 A.2d 38 (D.C. 1983) (articulated actus reus for threats and lack of required intent in some lines of authority)
- In re S.W., 45 A.3d 151 (D.C. 2012) (defined actus reus and result element for threats in DC)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (discussed presumptions about mental states and elements)
- Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (U.S. 2000) (principle that the law reads into statutes the requisite mental state for elements)