State v. C. S., 365 P.3d 535

Youth (12) repeatedly told three classmates over ~3 weeks that he would kill them, using imagery of voodoo, black magic, and a “death chart.”
Threats included time references to one victim that moved from years down to “three days”; other victims received no temporal references.
Youth made a throat‑slitting gesture (drawing his finger across his throat) and followed one victim briefly in a grocery store.
Juvenile court found youth within jurisdiction for three counts of menacing (ORS 163.190), reasoning the gesture made threats “imminent.”
On appeal, youth challenged legal sufficiency: whether an objectively reasonable person would fear imminent serious physical injury.
Court of Appeals reversed the menacing findings for insufficient evidence of imminence; otherwise affirmed and left one earlier-dismissed count undisturbed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed fear of "imminent" serious physical injury under ORS 163.190	State: frequent threats and shrinking timeframes showed the victims could be stabbed at any time, creating immediate fear	Youth: threats viewed in context were vague/future‑oriented and did not show harm was menacingly near	Reversed — evidence insufficient; unspecified/remote threats do not meet imminence requirement
Whether the throat‑slitting gesture converted vague threats into imminent threats	State: gesture plus words made harm appear immediate	Youth: gesture was symbolic and consistent with non‑imminent, future threats	Reversed — gesture did not render harm “imminent” to a reasonable person
Whether objective reasonable‑person standard applies for juveniles	State: same objective standard applies	Youth: did not argue for different standard	Court: applied ordinary objective reasonable‑person standard; no special juvenile modification
Whether context (frequency, content, following at store) sufficed to infer imminence	State: totality of conduct supported an inference of immediacy	Youth: absence of history of violence, relationship context, or specific plan undermines imminence inference	Reversed — totality here insufficient to show harm was "near at hand"

State v. S. T. S., 236 Or. App. 646 (2010) (standard of review and presumption as to unresolved factual disputes)
State v. Anderson, 56 Or. App. 12 (1982) (menacing uses objective reasonable‑person standard)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dompeling, 171 Or. App. 692 (2000) (construed “imminent” as “near at hand,” “impending,” or “menacingly near”)
Holbert v. Noon, 245 Or. App. 328 (2011) (applied Dompeling in FAPA context; totality of context can show imminence)
State v. Santacruz‑Betancourt, 157 Or. App. 26 (1998) (physical acts creating reasonable fear can constitute menacing)
State v. Lockwood, 43 Or. App. 639 (1979) (brandishing weapons supported finding of imminent fear)
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or. App. 297 (2000) (context and past conduct can inform imminence inference)