State v. Severson

“Under its ‘possession theory of UUW,’ the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant ‘possessed the [weapon] with the intent either (1) to employ the [weapon] to inflict harm or injury or (2) to employ the [weapon] to threaten immediate harm or injury.'” State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or. App. 259, 265 (2016). Also, “[a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury” ORS 163.190(1).

Defendant accused her ex-partner of molesting her son and upon moving out threatened her ex-partner with a meat tenderizer, and was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) and menacing. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State provided insufficient evidence to prove the requisite intent to sustain both convictions. The Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant’s statements intentionally threatened her ex-partner as “sufficiently near at hand to be imminent.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dompeling, 171 Or. App. 692, 696 (2000). “Under its ‘possession theory of UUW,’ the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant ‘possessed the [weapon] with the intent either (1) to employ the [weapon] to inflict harm or injury or (2) to employ the [weapon] to threaten immediate harm or injury.’” State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or. App. 259, 265 (2016). Also, “[a] person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury” ORS 163.190(1). The Court reasoned that the defendant’s behavior along with her statements supported a reasonable inference of imminent threats of harm. Therefore, a jury could conclude that the state met its burden on the proving the intent elements of the crimes. Affirmed.