State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Dompeling
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Watts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. TuilaepaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.