State of Oregon, Respondent on Review v. Eduardo Tinoco Rangel, Petitioner on Review

Summary

The court held that Oregon's stalking statute is not facially overbroad under either Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution or the First Amendment. It sustained narrowing constructions requiring a communication-based contact to include a genuine, objectively reasonable threat that convincingly expresses an intention to carry it out, while preserving the statute's knowingly mental element. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the circuit court's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.