{"id":705,"date":"2012-08-03T18:18:15","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T18:18:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=705"},"modified":"2020-10-08T17:16:30","modified_gmt":"2020-10-08T17:16:30","slug":"disorderly-conduct","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=705","title":{"rendered":"Disorderly Conduct"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>CR22-151.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-151.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Fighting, violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(1) (02\/02\/18)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-156.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-156.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Unreasonable noise<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(2) (02\/02\/18)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-161.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-161.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Abusive or obscene language<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(3) (02\/02\/18)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-166.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-166.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Disturbed lawful assembly<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(4) (02\/02\/18)<\/li>\n<li>CR22-171.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS22-171.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Obstructed traffic<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(5) (02\/02\/18)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><em>Reporter&#8217;s Notes<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Under the introductory language of the statute, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026, the state may charge that the defendant either (1) acted with intent to cause public inconvenience or annoyance, or (2) recklessly created a risk thereof.\u00a0 If the defendant is charged with an intent to cause public inconvenience, the State must prove that the defendant acted purposely, with the conscious object of causing public inconvenience.\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Jackowski<\/span>, 2006 VT 119, 181Vt. 73.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior<\/em>.\u00a0 The word \u201cthreaten\u201d includes an element of volition.\u00a0 A threat is a communicated intent to inflict harm on person or property.\u00a0 Threatening behavior is behavior that communicates the requisite intent.\u00a0 (Black\u2019s Law Dictionary).\u00a0 The statute requires some aspect of intent.\u00a0 <em>See<\/em> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State<\/span><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"> v. Cole<\/span>, 150Vt. 453, 456 (1988).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The committee revised the instruction in 2011 to make clear that \u201cthreatening behavior\u201d must be evaluated by an objective standard.\u00a0 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Albarelli<\/span>, 2011 VT 24.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <u>State v. Morse<\/u>, 2019 VT 58, the trial court instructed the jury that \u201cstatements and words\u201d were sufficient to constitute tumultuous behavior for purposes of disorderly conduct. <u>Id<\/u>. \u00b6 6. On appeal, defendant asserted, for the first time and directly contrary to her position below, that her conviction for disorderly conduct must be reversed because speech alone was insufficient to constitute tumultuous behavior. The Court assumed without deciding that defendant\u2019s reading of the disorderly conduct statute on appeal was correct, but held that defendant had waived her challenge under the \u201cinvited error doctrine.\u201d <u>Id<\/u>. \u00b6 7.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Abusive or Obscene Language.\u00a0<\/em>CR22-161 is designed for a charge of disorderly conduct based on abusive or obscene language under 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(3).\u00a0 The scope of the statute is narrowed by judicial gloss, to protect free speech under the first amendment.\u00a0 The committee drafted this instruction following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Allcock<\/span>, 2004 VT 52, 177 Vt. 467.\u00a0 Earlier the Court had recognized, in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Read<\/span>, 165 Vt. 141 (1996), that the statute may only be applied to the \u201cfighting words\u201d exception described in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire<\/span>, 315U.S. 568, 572 (1942).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Allcock<\/span>, a 3-2 majority of the Court upheld the defendant\u2019s conviction based on recklessness (as opposed to a more specific intent), and CR22-161 is drafted with recklessness as an option.\u00a0 The committee also agrees with a point made in Justice Dooley\u2019s dissent, that the \u201cfighting words\u201d requirement is an essential element to be proven, and not just a synonym for \u201cabusive language.\u201d\u00a0 See <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Allcock<\/span>, 2004 VT 52, \u00b6 23.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Tracy<\/span>, 2015 VT 111, the Supreme Court held that a defendant\u2019s act of calling a youth basketball coach a \u201cbitch\u201d and angrily uttering profanity while asking the coach why his daughter had not played in a game did not constitute the utterance of \u201cfighting words,\u201d and could not be used to support a conviction for disorderly conduct by abusive language. While the defendant\u2019s expression was \u201cvulgar, boorish, and just plain rude,\u201d it was not \u201creasonably expected to cause the average listener to respond with violence.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. \u00b6 39. He did not \u201clob heinous accusations against the coach, or taunt her to fight him.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. The Court observed that defendant uttered some of the offending statements as he walked away from the coach, which rendered them \u201cespecially unlikely to incite an immediate violent response.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The power to constitutionally prohibit \u201cobscene\u201d expression extends only to expression that is, \u201cin some significant way, erotic.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Tracy<\/span>, 2015 VT 111, \u00b6 21 n.13 (citing <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Cohen v. California<\/span>, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971)). In <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Long v. L\u2019Esperance<\/span>, the Court considered a civil suit against a police officer for unlawful arrest brought by a plaintiff who had been arrested for disorderly conduct by \u201cabusive or obscene language\u201d after he told a police officer at a DUI roadblock that he was irritated to have to wait \u201cin this fucking traffic for so long.\u201d 166 Vt. 566, 569 (1997). The comment was not obscene because it was not designed to appeal to the prurient interest. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. at 573. Though the comment might have been vulgar, \u201cit was entirely unrelated to sexual activity or sexual desire.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>. Nor could the comment be punished as \u201cfighting words\u201d because it did not \u201cinflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.\u201d <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>Disturbing a Lawful Assembly.\u00a0<\/em>CR22-166 is designed for a charge of disorderly conduct based on disturbing a lawful assembly without lawful authority, under 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(4).\u00a0 The model instruction derives from the charge given in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Maunsell<\/span>, No. 489-4-05 Wrcr.\u00a0 It includes a brief description of first amendment rights, explaining that there are limits to the right to free speech, and that one person does not have a right to exercise free speech in a way that prevents others from exercising their own rights of free association and discussion.\u00a0 The fifth element was added in 2009 in response to the decisions in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Colby<\/span> and <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">State v. Wardinski<\/span>, 2009 VT 28, 185 Vt. 464.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CR22-151.\u00a0 Fighting, violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(1) (02\/02\/18) CR22-156.\u00a0 Unreasonable noise, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(2) (02\/02\/18) CR22-161.\u00a0 Abusive or obscene language, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(3) (02\/02\/18) CR22-166.\u00a0 Disturbed lawful assembly, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1026(a)(4) (02\/02\/18) CR22-171.\u00a0 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=705\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":434,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-705","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=705"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/705\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1573,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/705\/revisions\/1573"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}