State v. Ryan, 350 Or. 670

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that a conviction for violating a stalking protective order did not require proof of an unequivocal threat of imminent and serious physical violence under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. Because the communications at issue were prohibited by an unchallenged stalking protective order, the court concluded that ORS 163.750 was not overbroad in the context presented. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Holdings

1. The state was not required to prove that Ryan's communications constituted an unequivocal threat objectively likely to cause imminent and serious personal violence because the communications were already prohibited by the stalking protective order.
2. ORS 163.750 was not overbroad in the context of Ryan's challenge because it applied only to communications already prohibited by the stalking protective order and, for the relevant communicative conduct, required reasonable apprehension regarding personal safety.
3. The trial court correctly denied Ryan's motion for judgment of acquittal and properly rejected the proposed jury instruction requiring proof of an unequivocal threat.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution required the state to prove that Ryan's communications in violation of a stalking protective order constituted an unequivocal threat of imminent and serious personal violence.
2. Whether ORS 163.750 is facially overbroad when applied to communications already prohibited by a concededly valid stalking protective order.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying Ryan's motion for judgment of acquittal and requested jury instruction.

Disposition

reversed