State v. Severson, 529 P.3d 302

Defendant lived with A and her young son; relationship ended and she was moving out when the incident occurred.
After accusing A of molesting her son, defendant followed A into his bedroom, threatened him and his dog, and later shouted the accusation outside, prompting a police call.
While A was in his locked bedroom he heard banging and recorded defendant talking to her son; defendant referenced "Thor" (interpreted as a hammer) and told her son, "When I call for it, you bring it to me," and made repeated threats to "bludgeon" A.
Police later found a relatively large cast-metal meat tenderizer and a damaged garbage can near A’s bedroom door; A did not see defendant with the tenderizer.
Defendant was arrested and convicted by a jury of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) and menacing; she appealed, arguing the state’s evidence was insufficient and the trial court erred in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency for UUW: whether evidence proved intent to use or threaten with a weapon	Constructive possession of the meat tenderizer via the son, banging noises, and explicit threats referencing a hammer supported an inference of intent to use or threaten	No proof she personally possessed or attempted to reach A; statements were hyperbolic bluster without intent to use the tenderizer	Affirmed — viewed favorably to the state, a jury could infer constructive possession and intent to use or threaten with the weapon
Sufficiency for Menacing: whether threats were of imminent serious physical injury	Threats occurred in the evening within feet of A’s bedroom, accompanied by banging, a temporal reference to harming him when his eyes were closed, and direction to bring the weapon — meeting the imminence requirement	Threats were empty; locked door and no attempt to enter meant harm was not imminent	Affirmed — facts (temporal context, location, conduct, and statements) supported a reasonable inference of intent to place A in fear of imminent serious injury

State v. Cervantes, 319 Or 121 (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal: view evidence in light most favorable to the state)
State v. Ziska/Garza, 355 Or 799 ("use" includes employing a weapon to threaten immediate harm)
State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or App 259 (UUW upheld where threats and conduct supported intent to use or threaten)
State v. Garibay, 307 Or App 722 (reversed UUW where evidence did not support intent to use a weapon against specified victim)
State v. C. S., 275 Or App 126 (threats lacking temporal specificity held not imminent)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Dompeling, 171 Or App 692 (language like "right now" or threats tied to a proximate time can satisfy imminence)
State v. Hejazi, 323 Or App 752 (threats without temporal specificity or supporting physical conduct insufficient to prove imminence)