Notes of Decisions

From defendant’s admission that he had been calling 9-1-1 for entertainment and from evidence that first time he called, he said “Huh?” after phone was answered, trier of fact could properly infer defendant had no communicative purpose when he caused phone to ring. State v. Hibbard, 110 Or App 335, 823 P2d 989 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

This section does not, on its face, prohibit speech or prohibit effect that is caused by words, because focus is not on speech but on causing telephone of another to ring. State v. Hibbard, 110 Or App 335, 823 P2d 989 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Victim does not “answer” telephone unless victim personally engages in process of removing receiver from hook and speaking. State v. Lopez, 151 Or App 138, 949 P2d 1237 (1997), Sup Ct review denied. But see State v. Norgard, 156 Or App 190, 967 P2d 499 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Message conveying information about caller’s state of mind has “communicative purpose,” even though message may be abusive, unwelcome or repetitious of earlier messages. State v. Allison, 325 Or 585, 941 P2d 1017 (1997)

Where victim is subjected to message or voice of caller upon playback of message recorded on telephone answering machine, caller causes victim to “answer” telephone. State v. Norgard, 156 Or App 190, 967 P2d 499 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Where no evidence that victim’s telephone made audible sounds caused by defendant’s calls after victim forbade defendant to call victim, defendant did not cause victim’s telephone “to ring” as used in this section. State v. Shifflett, 285 Or App 654, 398 P3d 383 (2017)

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972); 69 OLR 169 (1990)