case closely follows the statutory form of the crime, and the indictment is consistent with the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102.” Smith, 2014 WL 3954062, at *7. The charge of aggravated assault in this case consists of three elements: (1) intentional or knowing mens rea; (2) the assailant “attempts to cause dr causes bodily injury or commits or attempts to commit an assault”; and (3) the assailant has been “enjoined or restrained by an order, diversion or probation agreement” from committing the offense as described within element (2). See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c). The indictment in this case stated that the mens rea was “unlawfully and knowingly,” which is sufficient to charge the requisite mens rea under the statute. See id.-, Sledge, 15 S.W.3d at 95 (<HOLDING>). The indictment also alleges that the
holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea holding that under california law section 28002 requires a reckless mens rea holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea in federal carjacking statute holding that conditional intent sufficient to satisfy specific intent mens rea in federal car jacking statute