Title: State v. Jackowski

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Jackowski (2004-455)

2006 VT 119

[Filed 22-Nov-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 119

                                No. 2004-455


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit

  Rose Marie Jackowski                           September Term, 2005


  David T. Suntag, J.

  William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and Daniel M.
    McManus, Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Stephen L. Saltonstall of Barr Sternberg Moss Lawrence Silver Saltonstall &
    Scanlon, P.C., Bennington, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Defendant Rosemarie Jackowski appeals her
  conviction for disorderly conduct.  Defendant argues that the trial court
  improperly instructed the jury to consider whether defendant was
  "practically certain" that her conduct would cause public inconvenience or
  annoyance, when she was charged with intentionally causing public
  inconvenience or annoyance.  Defendant also contends that the trial court
  erred in excluding from evidence the protest sign she was carrying at the
  time of her arrest.  We reverse and remand.
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant was arrested on March 20, 2003, during an anti-war
  demonstration at the intersection of Routes 7 and 9 in Bennington.  During
  the demonstration, protesters blocked traffic at the intersection for
  approximately fifteen minutes.  Defendant stood in the intersection,
  praying and holding a sign bearing anti-war slogans and newspaper
  clippings, including an article accompanied by a photograph of a wounded
  Iraqi child.  Police officers repeatedly asked defendant to leave the
  intersection, and when she refused, she was arrested, along with eleven
  other protesters.  The State charged them with disorderly conduct, alleging
  that defendant and the other protesters, "with intent to cause public
  inconvenience and annoyance, obstructed vehicular traffic, in violation of
  13 V.S.A. § 1026(5)."

       ¶  3.  Defendant's intent was the only issue contested during her
  one-day jury trial.  After several police officers testified for the State,
  defendant took the stand, admitting to blocking traffic, but stating that
  her only intention in doing so was to protest the war in Iraq, not to cause
  public inconvenience or annoyance.  In response to the State's motion in
  limine to exclude defendant's protest sign, the trial court allowed
  defendant to display the sign to the jury and demonstrate how she was
  carrying it, but refused to admit it into evidence and allow it into the
  jury room.  At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury
  on the issue of intent.  The court first instructed the jury that the State
  could establish defendant's intent to cause public inconvenience or
  annoyance by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted "with the
  conscious object of bothering, disturbing, irritating, or harassing some
  other person or persons."  The court then added, "This intent may also be
  shown if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was
  practically certain that another person or persons . . . would be bothered,
  disturbed, irritated, or harassed."  The jury convicted defendant of
  disorderly conduct.  Defendant appeals.
   
       ¶  4.  Defendant first argues that the jury charge was improper
  because the trial court failed to instruct the jury to consider whether
  defendant acted with the requisite criminal intent.  "In reviewing jury
  instructions, the relevant inquiry is whether the instructions as a whole
  were misleading or inadequate to aid the jury's deliberations."  State v.
  Shabazz, 169 Vt. 448, 450,