State v. Hejazi, 524 P.3d 534

Defendant (Hejazi) had three encounters with R, an attorney: (1) courthouse hallway — defendant said “I’m going to skin you alive”; (2) about a week later on a sidewalk — defendant crossed the street, followed close behind, said “I could hit you right now,” tossed a paper, yelled “I’m going to kill you and your family,” then walked away; (3) a couple hours later in court — defendant pointed at R with a sardonic grin. R felt fear and took protective steps (texted family, installed security, deleted Facebook).
Officers observed at least some of the conduct; one officer testified defendant had used Facebook to locate someone previously (admitted for R’s state of mind).
Defendant was charged with menacing (ORS 163.190) and stalking (ORS 163.732); the trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a jury convicted on both counts.
On appeal, defendant argued (a) menacing lacked the required imminency and (b) stalking failed because two qualifying contacts were not proven—two of the three interactions were expressive speech and thus must meet the heightened Rangel standard.
Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and reversed both convictions: menacing failed for lack of imminency; stalking failed because only one contact qualified under the Rangel standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s statements constituted an imminent threat for menacing	Defendant’s pattern of approaching, following, and threats showed imminency; a reasonable person could believe he would act at any moment	Threat lacked temporal specificity and defendants’ actions (walking away after threat) did not make harm “near at hand”	Reversed. Threat not shown imminent; menacing conviction cannot stand
Whether second encounter counted as a qualifying contact for stalking (Rangel expressive-contact test)	Second encounter involved nonexpressive conduct (approach, entering personal space, throwing paper) that caused alarm, so Rangel doesn’t apply; at least two contacts qualified	Second encounter was primarily expressive; Rangel applies and the spoken threats did not meet Rangel’s heightened standard	Reversed. R was alarmed by defendant’s words (expressive conduct) but words did not meet Rangel’s requirement of an unequivocal, imminent, and objectively likely threat; fewer than two qualifying contacts proved

State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (establishes heightened standard for expressive contacts under stalking statute)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dompeling, 171 Or App 692 (imminency found where threat included "right now" and was temporally close)
State v. C. S., 275 Or App 126 (threats without indication harm was moments away insufficient for menacing)
D. W. C. v. Carter, 261 Or App 133 (distinguishes expressive vs nonexpressive contacts; culpability depends on what caused alarm)
State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691 (hyperbole and rhetorical excess insufficient to qualify as threatening under Rangel)