State v. Hejazi

In determining whether a threat constitutes menacing, the court considers whether the harm was imminent or "moments away." State v. C.S., 365 P3d 535 (2015). Similarly, contact for the purpose of stalking must involve threats that instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence, which are likely to be followed by unlawful acts. State v. Rangel, 977 P2d 379 (1999).

Defendant challenged his convictions for menacing and stalking following three negative encounters during which he threatened to harm an attorney, R, who was representing clients in a courthouse.  The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and found that two of the encounters were unwanted and showed escalating behavior.  On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and argued there was insufficient evidence to prove menacing because his threat lacked imminence and that only one of his encounters with R met the legal criteria for stalking.  In response, the State contended the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to determine the threatened harm was imminent and the legal elements of stalking had been satisfied.  In determining whether a threat constitutes menacing, the court considers whether the harm was imminent or "moments away."  State v. C.S., 365 P3d 535 (2015). Similarly, contact for the purpose of stalking must involve threats that instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence, which are likely to be followed by unlawful acts.  State v. Rangel, 977 P2d 379 (1999).  The Court reasoned that, although Defendant’s threat would cause an objectively reasonable person to fear the possibility of future harm, it did not create a harm that was “near at hand,” “impending,” or “menacingly near.”  Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to establish the imminence required for both charges.  Reversed.