State v. Murphy, 475 P.3d 100

Defendant had property at Hillsboro PD; after 90-day retention some items were destroyed and defendant became agitated when told some property was gone.
S, an evidence technician, interacted with defendant during which he yelled, was escorted off the property, and S knew defendant had a history that suggested access to weapons.
Later that day defendant left two rambling voicemails threatening to bring Army personnel with M-16s (citing Fort Lewis and "Army officers") and repeatedly said S had been "sentenced to death" and that he would shoot her if she did not return his property.
Defendant was charged under ORS 166.065 for conveying telephonic threats causing alarm; the statute (as applied) requires that a reasonable person would believe the threat was likely to be followed by action.
At the close of the state’s case defendant moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the threats were "ridiculous" and not feasible (couldn’t plausibly recruit soldiers and guns), but did not argue lack of imminence below.
The trial court denied the MJOA; on appeal the court held defendant failed to preserve an imminence argument and affirmed because a rational juror could find S’s alarm objectively reasonable given the context and content of the threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of an imminence requirement	Defendant failed to preserve a claim that the victim had to reasonably believe the threat was imminent; therefore it need not be considered on appeal	Appellant contends a required element is that the victim reasonably believed the threat would be carried out imminently	Court: preserved argument? No — defendant did not raise imminence below; appellate review of it is not permitted (no plain-error request)
Sufficiency of evidence that victim’s alarm was objectively reasonable	The evidence (voicemails + prior in-person agitation + defendant’s weapons history) permitted a rational juror to find S’s alarm objectively reasonable and likely to be followed by action, even if specific means were implausible	The threats were implausible and "ridiculous" (e.g., recruiting Army officers from Fort Lewis); thus no reasonable person would believe defendant could carry them out	Court: affirmed denial of MJOA — a reasonable person could have believed the threats (in context) were likely to be followed by action, so evidence was sufficient

State v. Moyle, 299 Or 691 (Or. 1985) (harassment requires actual alarm and that alarm be reasonable under the circumstances)
State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (Or. 1999) (threats must instill fear of imminent and serious personal violence and be objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts)
State v. Rogers, 301 Or App 393 (Or. App. 2019) (describing elements of harassment under ORS 166.065)
State v. Colpo, 305 Or App 690 (Or. App. 2020) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Vanorum, 354 Or 614 (Or. 2013) (preservation rules require alerting the trial court to the substance of a claim)
State v. K. J. B., 362 Or 777 (Or. 2018) (an objection on one theory of insufficiency does not preserve other theories)
D. W. C. v. Carter, 261 Or App 133 (Or. App. 2014) (contacts must be viewed in context to assess objective reasonableness)
Pinkham v. Brubaker, 178 Or App 360 (Or. App. 2001) (history between parties can change the character of otherwise innocuous contacts)