S.L.L. v. MacDonald

While a conditional threat alone is not sufficient to satisfy the immediacy element for granting a stalking protective order (SPO), the context of the threat and other evidence can sufficiently establish an immediate threat for a court to grant an SPO.

Respondent appealed the trial court’s decision to grant petitioner’s motion for permanent stalking protective order (SPO). In 2009, while petitioner and respondent were married, respondent choked and beat petitioner and was subsequently convicted of felony assault in Washington. A provision of respondent’s sentence prohibited respondent from contacting petitioner. Petitioner moved to Multnomah county, and filed a motion for an SPO, alleging that respondent had contacted petitioner in violation of the Washington sentence provision. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion. Respondent appealed, and the Court of Appeals reviews the trial court’s decision for error on the issue of whether threatened harm was “imminent”. The Court held that while a conditional threat (the threatened harm was conditioned on reporting the contact) alone is not sufficient to satisfy the immediacy element for granting a stalking protective order (SPO), the context of the threat and other evidence can sufficiently establish an immediate threat for a court to grant an SPO. Affirmed.