Case Title: State v. Read

Citation: 165 Vt 141, 680 A.2d 944

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Read  (95-023); 165 Vt 141; 680 A.2d 944

[Opinion Filed 22-Mar-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 95-023


State of Vermont                       Supreme Court

                                       On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                       Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

John J. Read                                 September Term, 1995


James R. Crucitti (trial) and Robert Grussing III (sentencing), JJ.

       William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and Marcia J.
  Moss and John T. Lavoie, Deputy State's Attorneys, Bennington, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Stephen L. Saltonstall of Witten, Saltonstall, Woolmington, Bongartz &
  Campbell, P.C., Bennington, for defendant-appellant

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of Defender General


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       GIBSON, J.   Defendant was convicted in Bennington District Court of
  violating the "abusive language" provision of Vermont's disorderly conduct
  statute, 13 V.S.A. § 1026(3). He now challenges the constitutionality of
  that provision under the United States and Vermont constitutions.  We
  affirm.

       On May 20, 1993, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Trooper Michael Roj of
  the Vermont State Police responded to a single-car accident on Route 100 in
  Whitingham.  Trooper Roj found defendant, whom the trooper knew, at the
  scene.  Defendant told the trooper, "Mike, I fucked up."  The trooper took
  no offense at defendant's language, but considered the comment to be
  "street language."  The trooper detected the odor of alcohol on defendant's
  breath, and defendant stated that he had consumed a beer after the
  accident.  The trooper, observing that defendant had suffered multiple
  facial lacerations, persuaded defendant to seek treatment for his injuries,
  and

 

  summoned an ambulance, which transported defendant to the emergency room of
  the Southwestern Vermont Medical Center.

       At approximately 3:00 a.m., Trooper Roj arrived at the medical center
  to continue his accident investigation.  He entered the hospital through
  the emergency entrance and observed an ambulance crew, a nurse, a
  physician, and another person, either a patient or a visitor, in the
  emergency admissions area.  He also observed defendant in the same area,
  talking on a public telephone and then entering an examining room just off
  the emergency admissions area.  After speaking with the nurse, Trooper Roj
  followed defendant into the examining room.

       The trooper asked defendant several questions about the accident;
  defendant responded in a cooperative manner.  Trooper Roj then told
  defendant that, because he believed defendant had been driving under the
  influence of intoxicating beverages, he would be processing defendant for
  DUI.  He immediately observed that defendant went "from being very
  cooperative and very personable to being very uncooperative, very
  aggressive, very argumentative, very insulting, very profane, and
  display[ing] a number of very aggressive mannerisms." Specifically,
  defendant shouted:  "You're a fucking piece of shit. . . .  You're a
  fucking asshole. . . .  I want you to get out of my face.  You're dead." 
  Defendant's tone of voice was very loud, and Trooper Roj observed that
  defendant's arms were flexed and rigid, his fists were clenched, his teeth
  were grinding, and his facial expression was rigidly set in what the
  trooper called "the thousand-mile stare."

       Trooper Roj attempted to calm defendant down, and advised him that
  there were a number of other people in the emergency room who should not be
  subjected to defendant's tone of voice or language.  The trooper also told
  defendant that he could face criminal charges for his behavior.  Defendant
  became even angrier, and shouted:  "Go ahead, you fucking pig. You're a
  stupid fucking pig.  You're not even here, you pig."  Trooper Roj felt "a
  sense of great anger built up within me based upon not only the words that
  were used, but the voice, the aggressive voice in which they were used,"
  and felt "afraid of the possibilities of an imminent

 

  attack by Mr. Read upon me," particularly after defendant told the trooper,
  "You're dead."(FN1)  During defendant's tirade, the door of the examining room
  was open.  When Trooper Roj left the room, he observed a physician seated
  in an adjacent room with its door open, and a nurse seated forty-five feet
  from the examining room.

       Trooper Roj acknowledged that he had had both training and experience
  in dealing in a nonviolent manner with abusive persons, including
  intoxicated persons, and that he would be subject to disciplinary action if
  he struck a person merely for being verbally abusive.

       Defendant was charged with disorderly conduct, in violation of 13
  V.S.A. § 1026(3), which provides, in pertinent part:  "A person who, with
  intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance or recklessly creating a
  risk thereof . . . [i]n a public place uses abusive . . . language . . .
  shall be imprisoned for not more than 60 days or fined not more than
  $500.00 or both."  13 V.S.A. § 1026(3) (emphasis added).  Defendant moved
  for dismissal on the grounds that the statute is facially vague and
  overbroad in that it impermissibly infringes free speech, as guaranteed
  under the United States and Vermont constitutions.  The trial court denied
  defendant's motion, holding that the "abusive language" provision of §
  1026(3) applies only to "fighting words," as that term was used by the
  United States Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,