Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Dompeling

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 2000No. 9800750JV; CA A105207Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

The majority concludes on de novo review that youth committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of menacing. Because I conclude that youth’s speech, although troubling, cannot reasonably be construed as threatening and that, even if threatening, the potential harm to which her speech alluded was not imminent, I would reverse the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

As a preliminary matter, I take issue with the majority’s statement of facts. The majority accepts at face value *697mother’s conclusory statement that youth…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Watts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  5. People v. TuilaepaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API