Langford v. Langford, 324 P.3d 623

Background

Petitioner and respondent are former romantic partners who share a son, J; petitioner sought a stalking protective order (SPO).
Petitioner testified to four contacts by respondent between April and September 2011: an April in-person confrontation at her garage during supervised pickup; repeated June calls/texts threatening to call police/DHS and a welfare check; a September 3 in-person incident where respondent said “I wish you were dead” and advanced toward her; and September 12–13 messages reporting a missing-child report and threats to seek custody if petitioner did not respond.
Petitioner had prior allegations of physical abuse by respondent from 2003–2004 and said she felt alarmed by the 2011 contacts.
The trial court entered a permanent SPO under ORS 30.866; respondent appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence.
The Court of Appeals reviewed for any evidence (not de novo) and evaluated whether the contacts were "repeated and unwanted" and, for speech-based contacts, whether they met the Rangel threat standard.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether contacts meet ORS 30.866’s "repeated and unwanted" contact requirement	The four incidents cumulatively constitute repeated, unwanted contact causing reasonable fear	Two or more contacts were nonqualifying speech or were permitted contacts; respondent was not reckless regarding their unwanted nature	Reversed: evidence insufficient because fewer than two qualifying contacts established
Whether speech-based contacts satisfy Rangel threat standard	Petitioner contends calls/texts and custody-threat messages alarmed her and were part of repeated harassment	Respondent argues messages threatened lawful action (police/DHS/custody), not imminent unlawful violence, so Rangel not satisfied	Held that June and Sept 12–13 communications did not meet Rangel (no imminent, serious violent threat; lawful means threatened)
Whether "I wish you were dead" is a qualifying threat under Rangel	Petitioner argues the statement plus advancing conduct caused objective alarm	Respondent contends phrase was hyperbolic anger, not an unequivocal threat of imminent violence	Held the statement was an impotent expression of anger and not a Rangel-qualifying threat; noncommunicative conduct did not produce objectively reasonable alarm
Sufficiency of contacts overall to support SPO	Petitioner argues cumulative contacts (speech + in-person) meet statutory elements including reasonable fear	Respondent argues insufficient qualifying contacts and lack of objective alarm/fear for violence	Held insufficient: only April incident remained potentially qualifying, but two qualifying contacts are required, so SPO unsupported

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Roach, 249 Or. App. 579 (2012) (standard of review: appellate review for any evidence and legal errors when de novo not warranted)
State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (1999) (speech qualifies as a threat only if it unambiguously conveys intent to inflict imminent serious personal violence and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts)
Pinkham v. Brubaker, 178 Or. App. 360 (2001) (definition of "contact" under stalking statutes includes visual/physical presence and communications)
Bryant v. Walker, 190 Or. App. 253 (2003) (contacts cumulatively must cause the petitioner reasonably to fear for personal safety)
Christensen v. Carter/Bosket, 261 Or. App. 133 (2014) (speech-based contacts must satisfy Rangel to qualify under ORS 30.866)
Noriega v. Parsons, 253 Or. App. 768 (2012) (threats to confront or warning language that do not indicate likely unlawful violence may be insufficient for SPO)
Goodness v. Beckham, 224 Or. App. 565 (2009) (threats of legal action are not Rangel-type threats supporting an SPO)
Jennings v. Gifford, 211 Or. App. 192 (2007) (short expletive or insulting speech did not constitute an unequivocal threat of imminent violence)
State v. Moyle, 299 Or. 691 (1985) (distinguishes hyperbole/rhetorical excess from true threats)