State v. Murphy

“[A] proscribable threat is a communication that instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999).

Defendant was convicted of harassment. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to bring forward evidence that showed it to be objectively reasonable for the victim to believe that the Defendant planned to carry out his threats. In response, the State argued that according to a reasonable person, an action of some sort was likely to follow the threat. “[A] proscribable threat is a communication that instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 (1999). The Court found that the nature, circumstances, and context of Defendant’s actions provided enough evidence for a factfinder to conclude that the victim’s alarm was reasonably objective. The Court held that because the Defendant’s threats against the victim were sufficient for a factfinder to conclude that the victim had an objectively reasonable belief that Defendant would act on his threats, the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was not in error. Affirmed.