State v. Kreft, 346 P.3d 1294

Defendant was charged with second-degree disorderly conduct under ORS 166.025(l)(a) for allegedly engaging in fighting or violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior.
The trial court denied a judgment of acquittal; defendant was convicted after a trial to the court.
On appeal, defendant argued the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The reviewing court analyzes the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine substantial evidence of the elements.
Cantwell construes ORS 166.025(l)(a) as punishing only physical force or physical conduct immediately likely to produce force; speech alone is not prohibited.
The court ultimately reverses, finding insufficient evidence that defendant engaged in conduct or force that was immediately likely to produce physical force.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports ORS 166.025(l)(a) conviction.	State contends defendant’s conduct was enough under Cantwell.	Cantwell requires physical force or immediate likelihood of force; facts here are insufficient.	Yes; evidence insufficient; conviction reversed.

State v. Atwood, 195 Or App 490 (2004) (framework for reviewing sufficiency and physical conduct concepts)
Cantwell, 66 Or App 848 (1984) (physical force or conduct; speech not prohibited by statute)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Krieger, 177 Or App 156 (2001) (physical acts not sufficiently forceful to violate statute)
State v. Miller, 226 Or App 314 (2009) (physical force or conduct immediately likely to produce force analysis)
Atwood (cited as authority), 195 Or App 492 (2004) (context for evaluating behavior and immediacy of force)
City of Eugene v. Lee, 177 Or App 492 (2001) (overbroad/void for vagueness considerations in analogous ordinance)