T he m ai n de m o nst rat i o n oc curred d uri ng A ugust 20 0 5
. So m e d em o nst rat o rs ret urned i n N o vem b er and 1 ag ain in A p ril t o ch all en ge t he co nsti t uti o na l i t y of o rd i na nc es e na cted b y t he co un t y i n re sp o nse t o t he A ug ust dem ons t r at i on. T he ori gi nal ar ea us ed i n t he dem ons t r at i on was ca l l ed C amp Case y I
. As t he dem ons t r at i on gr ew a l o ca l C raw f

o rd resid en ce d o na t ed an ac re fo r t he d em o nstrato rs t o use; t his was id en t i f i ed as C am p C ase y II. M s. S h e e h a n late r p u rc h a se d fi v e a c re s o f l a n d ne a r C ra w fo rd . T h is a re a w a s n a m e d C a m p C a se y III
. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 608- 08

E M IL Y H A R D Y a n d H IR A M K . M Y E R S , A p p ell a n ts

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON S FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

M c LENNAN CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h P RI CE , W OMACK , H OL C OM B , and C OCHR AN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P .J ., filed a d iss e n tin g o p in io n in w hi c h M E YE RS , K EASLE R and H ERVEY , J J ., j oi ne d. O P I N I O N Cindy Sheehan lost he r son, Casey , in the Iraq War in 2004. In August 2005, Ms. S heeha n tr ave le d to Cr awf

or d, Te xas, in a

n atte mpt to m e e t w ithPr e sid e nt B us h a bo ut h e r son ’s de ath. Ms. Sheehan’ s eff

orts turned into an anti-war de monstration that ext ended ove r an e ight- month period. 12

Appellants Emily

Har dy and Hira m My ers pa

rticipated in the de monstration. As the August demonstration g ained momentum, demonstration l eade rs cooperate d with the McL ennan County

Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment to ensur e th a

t t h e d e mo nstrators we re not violatingany laws
o r c r e at i n gh a z ar d o u s c o n d i t i o n s . B e c a u s e s o m e d e m o n s tr at o r s w e r e e n c r o a c h i n go nth e r o a dw ay, Sheriff’ s Captain Vane k sug g ested that the de monstrators m ove to a triangle of land (the triang le)
c re ate d b y the int e rs e c tio n o f t

hr e e ro a ds : Mo rg an Roa d on the we st, Pr a ir ie Cha

pe l Ro a d d ia g on a lly on th e n o rth an d e a s t, an d a s h o rt ( 2 2 9 f e e t) unn ame d r o a d o n th e s o uth
. T h is tria n g le was c alled Camp Casey

I . Appellants and othe r demonstrators ere cted small t ents in this area . Be cause of complaints from neighbors, Captain Va nek aske d the demonstrator s to move from the t riang le to the shoulder, and they moved from the triang le to the bar ditches on the west side of Morg an Road and the south side of the unnamed road. They wer e told by sheriff ’s deputies that they

could be in the ba r d itc he s, but ha d to sta

y of f o f t he ro a ds the mse lve s. T he number

of demonstrators g rewto over 700 a nd sometimes as many

as 2000 on a
wee kend. A ne ighboring la ndowner offe red the use of a

n acr e of la

nd, and most of the demonstrators moved to that are a, alleviating much of the cong estion and traf

fic. Duri ng Au gus t 20 05 , the re we re no ma jor inc ide nts inv olv ing de mon str ator s and no arr e sts for obstruc ting a

roadw ay . At that time, the Sheriff ’s Depa rtment’s policy

as to the demonstrators
wa s to a llo w them to u se the ba r d itc he s b e c a

us e the y we re “ pu bli c pr op e rt

y on wh ic h th e y

c ou ld express their views.” D emonstrators a nd sheriff ’s deputies c ooperated in keepingthe pave d are as unobstructed. At the sug g estion of deputies, demonstrators parke d their ca rs in Crawf

ord and w ent to the site by

shuttle. Al s o at the sug g estion of deputies, they used roa ds betwee n the site and Crawf ord i n such a way as t o cre ate de facto one-w ay roads to r educe the fre quency of mee ting other3

P art I d ef

i ned t erm s, pa rt II de al t wi t h pub l i c nui sances, and pa rt V de al t wi t h ci vi l enf o rcem ent of t he 2 o rder. U nd er t hi s d ef i ni t i o n, t he t ri angl e was part of t he p ub l i c ri ght

- o f

- way, but t he o wner of som e ab ut t i ng l and 3 p ro d u c e d a w a rr a n ty d e e d to p ro v e tha t t h e trian g le w a s p riv a te p ro p e rty.

T hi s was app el l ant s’ s eco nd at t em p t t o chal l enge t he o rder. O n T hanksgi vi ng D ay 2 0 0 5 , ap p el l ant s and 4 ot h er de mon s t r at or s e r ec t ed t en t s a n d w er e ar r es t ed, bu t c h ar g es a g ai n s t t h em we r e n ev er f i l ed. A l t ho ugh no ro ad way ob st ruct i o n exi st ed , t he She ri f f ’ s D ep art m ent volunt ari l y cl o sed t he road ad jacent 5 to the b a r d itch w h e re the ten ts w e re lo c a te d
.

A t t h e ti m e o f t h e o ff

e n se , she w a s a se rg e a n t. 6 ve hic le s. Ca

pta in V ane k a lso te sti fi e d th at th e de mon str ator s c le ane d u p th e are a be fo re the y

le ft
. After the first demonstration ended at the end of August, and afte r receivingcomplaints from
near by residents a

bout the cong estion and hea vy traff ic at Camp Casey

I , in September the M cLe nn anC o un ty

C o m m i s s i o n e r s C o urti s s u e d an“ o r d e r ” th atp r o h i b i t e d t e n t s ( p artIII ) an d

s ew age
rec eptac les (portable toilets)(part I V) from being placed on the right- of-wa y of any county road, a nd 2 define d “right-of-w ay” as the are a betwe en the f ence s on county

roads (part I I ). The orde r suffe red 3 from poor draf

ting and, beca

use of the poor draf

ting, provided no pe nalty

for e rec ting a

tent except
remova l of the tent by

county personne l beca

use it was a public nuisance
. The orde r stated that the
c o un ty w o u l d p r o s e c ut e v i o l at o r s “ i na c c o r d an c e w i thth e c r i m i n a l tr e s p a s s l aw s o f T e x a s . ” In
re sp on se to t

he ne w o rd ina

nc e , th e She ri ff

’s Of fi c e c ha ng e d it s p oli c ie s a s to the de mon str ator s. On April 14, 2006, in an e ffor t to challeng e th e constitutionalit y of the tent ordina

nce, appellants e rec ted a tent on the south side of the unnamed r oad in t h e area de fined in the ne w
or din anc e a s p art

of the ri g ht- of

-w ay . Ca

pta in Va ne k wa s in fo rm e d b y

the de mon str ator s o f t

he ir 4 intentions in advance
. Alongwith 15 other off icer s, Captain Vane k went t o t h e s i t e. L ieutenant 5 Smit h rea d to the demonstrators a “Notice .” 6 In order to keep you safe , preve nt inter fer ence with tr aff ic, and prote ct the saf

ety of4

the trave ling public, we must i n s i s t that you stay off of the roa d. Fur

thermore , vehicles must not be par

ked on the road. You should stay in the bar ditche s alongthe road, and park any vehicles in the ditch are a with no pa rt of the ve hicle stickingout into the road. We will give r easona

ble war nings, how ever , if you fail to comply with the direc tives to stay off of the roa d, or to move a vehicle off of the roa d, the applica ble laws of the State of Texas will be enfor ced. The notice continued with t h e t ex t of T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 42.03(a) and a statement that
v i o l at i o nw a s a

C l a s s B m i s d e m e an o r an d c o u l d a l s o r e s u l t i n th e t o w i n g o f o f f e n d i n gv e h i c l e s . It conclude d with “[w] e ask f or your cooper ation in maintaining unobstruc ted and sa fe pa ssag e over the ro a d” and the po ssi bil ity of c ri min a l tr e sp a ss i f t

he y we re on pr ivate pr op e rt

y . L ie ute na

nt S mith then re ad to the demonstrators a “w arning .” Your e rec tion of a t ent or tents in a r ight- of-wa y of Prairie Chapel Road and Mor g an Road prese nts public safety conce rns and is hazardous. The road and its right-of -wa y are dedi ca ted to trave l. Vehicular traff ic passes in both direc tion along the road. Occ asionally , vehicles ma y stray into the right-of- way due to accident, drive r er ror, mecha nical will [si c] problems, road c onditions or other ca use. It is u n s afe for persons to be occupy

ing structure s in suc h proxi mity to the roadw ay . Fur

thermore , such pre sents a hazard for evasive action, forc ing the driver to c hoose whe ther to take evasive action to avoid an a ccide nt or possibly running over a person who could be o c c u p yi n gth e s tr

u c tur e e r e c t e d

o nth e r i g h t
- o f

- w ay. T h e r e f o r e , yo uar e o r d e r e d t o r e m o v e th e t e n t s o ut o f th e r i g h t
- o f

- w ay i m m e d i at e l y. Fa ilure to do so may

result in your ar

rest pursua

nt to 42.03 of the Penal Code. Please take notice that the pr operty upon whi ch you have e rec ted a tent is the right of wa y of a M cLen n an C ounty road. B y

order dated Septembe r 27 , 2005 the th M c L e nn anCo un ty c o mm is s io n e r s c o urt b y v ir tu e o f it s g e n e r a l a

uth o r it y o f [s ic ] a c ounty ro a d p ro hib ite d th e e re c tio n o f s he lte rs in t he ri g ht o f way of c ounty ro a ds
. Th e c ounty ’s ri g ht o f c ontr ol o ve r t he c ounty ’s ro a ds g ive s it a su pe ri or rig ht t o po sse ssi on . Y our us e of the ri g ht of wa y in vio latio n of

the c ounty ’s re gulatio n is a trespass. The ref

ore, ple ase be war

ned that you must immediately remove from the rig ht of way

the ten t s which you have e rec ted. I f you ref use to do so, you may

be arres t edfo r c ri m i n al tre s p as s i nac co rd an ce wi ths u b -s ec t i o n3 0
. 0 5 o f t h e P en al C ode. In addition the publi c ea s em en t upon the proper ty is lim ited to travel a

nd the incidents there of. The unde rline [sic] leg al title belong s to the adjoining la ndowner5

T he shape o f

t he gri l l s uggest s t hat t he car i s a l at e m o d el B ui ck. 7 or owne rs who have informed the Sheriff’ s Offic e that they object to the er ection of su c h it e ms o n th e pr op e rt

y and c on sid e rs [sic ] suc h to be i n a c c e ss [s ic ] of the pu bli c ease ment. There fore , you are further war ned to r emove from the rig ht of way the te nts a s s uch is a tr e sp a ss u po n th e pr op e rt

y int e re st o f t

he a djo ini ngland owne rs . F a ilure to d o s o ma

y re su lt i n your a

rr e st f or c ri min a l tr e sp a ss. Appellants we nt into a tent that had been ere cted on the grassy are a on the south side of the unnamed r oad and r emained the re until they wer e ar rested. Both video ta

pes of the sc ene showa line of demonstrators seate d in folding chair s that wer e set up approximately five fe et from the e dg e of the pave ment and to the we st of the tent closest to the paveme nt. One of the two videos that ar e par t of the re c or d s ho ws tha

t, be fo re the sh e ri ff

’s de putie s ar

ri ve d, a fu ll- size se da

n wa s par

ke d d ir e c tly 7 to the east of the tent closest t o the road. It is completely off the paveme nt, and the tent was fur ther
o ff the roa d than the seda

n is wide. All of the cha irs wer e close r to the roa d than was that tent. A
se c on d ten t w a s p l a c e d

d i r e c t l y t o th e w e s to f

th e f i r s tt e n t , n e xt

t o th e l i n e o f

c h a i r s an d

s l i g htl y behind it. A third tent was er ecte d behind the other two tents and wa s close to the fe nce. A ll three
wer e small “pup” tents in which an avera g e-size adult could sit uprig ht only in the cente r. Ever

yone who was in a

ny of the thre e tents wa s arr ested. B efor e ea ch ar rest, S gt
. C h annon approac hed the tent, explained that te nts were prohibited and a sked the de monstrator to leave the tent. Sgt. Channon can be hear d on the video tape informingthe demonstrator s that they wer e beingarr est ed for violating the te nt ordinance . He did n o t at an y t i me appr oach a nyone sitting in a c hair. Demonstrator s who sat in lawn chair s on the side of the main road, next to the tents and closer to the paveme nt, were not asked to move, nor w ere they arr ested. It is clear f

rom the testimony

and the video tapes that the offense for which appellants were arr ested wa s not beingso close to a r oad as to obstruct it, but for beingin a tent set up in the “r ight- of-wa y” of a county road, a s descr ibed in the6

T he t hem e was conti nued i n t he warni ng t hat was r ead t o t he d em o nst rat o rs : “ vehi cl es may s t ray i n t he 8 ri ght

- o f

- way due t o acci d ent , dri ver err o r, m echanical wi l l [s i c] pro b l em s, road co nd i t i o ns o r ot her cause. ” R ep o rt ers Rec or d, v ol
. 3, p. 76.

St at e’ s exhi b i t s 1 8

- 2 4 are pho t o graphs s ho wi ng a f ul l

- si ze p i ckup t ruck and a whit e Sub urban p ass i ng 9 e a c h o the r o n the un n a m e d ro a d . S ta te ’s ex h ib it 2 0 sh o w s the w h ite v e h ic le o ff to the sid e o f t h e ro a d o n the trian g le t o gi ve t he p i ckup ad d i t i o nal cl earance. D uri ng t he A p ri l de m o nst rat i o n, t he t ri angl e was r o p ed off , and no demon s t r at or s w er e i n t h at a r ea . St at e’ s e x h i bi t s 29- 32 a r e ph ot og r aph s s h owi n g t en t s a n d por t abl e t oi l et s pl ac ed on t he ed ge o f

t he p aved area, but t hese pho t o graphs were al l t aken d uri ng t he A ugust de m o nst rat i o n. county ordinanc e. Howe ver, the y wer e later

char g ed with v i o l at i n g T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 42.03, ObstructingHig hway

or Other Passag ewa

y . The trial court gra

nted appellants’ motions for a joint tr i a l , an d th e c a s e s w e r e tr i e d

t o a j ur y. At trial, Captain Vane k testified that tents wer e dang erous be cause people inside could not
see what was g oing on a

round them and “could not rea ct to something that would happen f rom the roadw ay .” His testimony

indicated that his conc ern for the hazard cre ated by the demonstrator s was based on the specu lative and the a bnormal: two vehicle s too wide to pass ea ch other , sudden mecha n ic a l f a il ur e , f ar m e qu ip me n t t

r av e li n gat s u c ha

s p e e d th at p e d e s tria

n s c o u ld n o t g e t ba ck fr om t he ro a d q uic kly e no ugh. Whe n a sk e d if

te nts that ha

ve no sid e s wou ld be a c c e pta ble , h e sa id 8 that th e y wo uld no t be and

a g re e d th at th e iss ue wa s n ot t he pr ote c tio n of peo pl e ins ide the te nts , even if only a ca nopy ; tents were not allowed, eve n if unoccup i ed . When questioned about the events of A

pril 14, he conc eded that no one’s passa g e on any of the thre e roa ds had bee n obstructed 9

and that th e te nts we re no t ob str uc tin gthe pave d a

re a . O the r l aw-enfor cem ent witne sse s a lso te sti fi e d th at te nts we re pr oh ibi te d f or the sa fe ty

of the de mon str ator s. Captain Vane k also testified that they had had pr oblems with the tents in the past, but no problems exist ed on the day in question; however, the y wanted to ke ep it under c ontrol befor e it g ot out of hand. W hen asked whether appellants were obstruc ting the stre et, Captain Va nek said “No,7

[ D ef ens e] : T he t hi r d page i s a w ar ni ng an d t el l s t he prot es t er s about a M cLen nan Co un t y order dat ed 10 S e p te m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . Is tha t co rr e c t? Lt. Sm i t h: Y es, s i r. [ D ef en s e] : I t ’ s n ot a c opy of t h e or der , bu t i t ’ s a s u mmar y t h at s omeon e wr ot e of t h e–t h ei r i n t er pr et at i on of the o rd e r b e c a u se the M c L e n n a n C o u n ty C o m m issio n e rs p a sse d a n o rd e r th a t p ro h ib ited ten ts b e ing in the rig h t-o fw a y w h ic h the y d e fine d a s the li n e b e tw e e n the fen c e s– o r th e sp a c e b e tw e e n the fen c e s. Is tha t co rr e c t?

L t
. S m i t h: Y es.

* * * [D e fen se ]: A n d yo u r o b se rv a tio n in w riting this re p o rt w a s tha t o n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , d e p u ties r e sp o n d e d to P ra irie C h a p e l R o a d a t M o rg a n R o a d in re g a rd s to p ro te ste rs e re c ting ten ts a lo n g the ro a d w a y. Is tha t co rr e c t?

Lt. Sm i t h: Y es, s i r. [D ef ense]: Y o u’ ve no w seen t he vi d eo , and y o u know t hat , i n f act , al l of t he t ent s were erect ed not o n t he stre e t b u t o ff

the stre e t. Is th a t co rr e c t? Lt. Sm i t h: In t he ri ght

- o f

- way, y es, s i r. Repor t er ’ s Rec or d, v ol
. 3, pp. 79, 82 they wer e not obstructingthe ac tual paved pa rt of the stre et; they wer e obstructingthe right-of-w ay .” He a lso stated that

[w] ith i n d iv id

u a ls s ta yin g in te n ts in th is ty

p e o f ar e a , th e r o a d s are very narr ow, bar ely

wide enough for two ve hicles to pa ss sa fely , and the ri g ht- of

-w ay fr om t he ro a d to t he fenc es is na rr owa lso . And

if someone wa s driving down the roa d and had some ty pe of me chanic al failure on the vehicle or poss ibly they thought that a

nother onc oming vehicle might hit them, they would have to take evasive action and possibly g o into the ditch. And someone sitti ngin a tent wouldn’t be a ble to se e the ha zar d co min gtow ard the m . . . if

you are e nc los e d in a tent, you wouldn' t be able to r eac t that way . It is a safe ty issue. * * * On April 14 , we did not have to divert any traff ic t hat day
. We got th out there a

nd took car e of the situation before it became a hazar d. L ieutenant Smith testif

i ed t h at n o traff

ic was dive rted, no ve hicles tried to drive down the unnamed r oad, and no one was unable to g et by on the road. She agree d that all tents were ere cted of f o f t he pave d a

re a , b ut “ in t

he ri g ht- of

-w ay” a s d e fi ne d b y

the c ounty

or din anc e , that a

ro a d is 10 not the same a s a bar

ditch, that the notice she rea d instructed the de monstrators to s t ay i n the bar ditch and to par

k their vehicles in the bar ditch, and that the order s he gave was intende d “to pre vent8

T h e S h e riff’ s D e p a rtm e n t ha d c o m p le te ly clo se d the ro a d c lo se st to the b a r d itch b e c a u se o f t h e m e d ia 11 a n d lar g e c ro w d , t h u s m a k ing a n o b stru c tio n o f t ra ff ic o r a ha z a rd o u s c o n d iti o n un like ly. W hen q uest i o ned ab o ut what he co nsi d ered an ob st ruct i o n, Sgt. C hanno n s t at ed , “ In my op i ni o n– I mean, 12 i f I hav e a ve hicle i n the m i d d l e o f t he co un t ry and i t s t i res a re n o t t o uc hing the ro ad w ay b ut t w o ve hicles ca nn o t p ass goi ng opp osi t e di r ect i ons wi t hout hi t t i ng s om et hi ng , t hen i t s an obst r uct i on of t hat r oadway
. ” B ut i f

t wo veh i cl es ca nn o t p ass safely wh en t he “o b st ruc t i ng ” v eh i cle is co m p l etely o f f o f t he ro ad w ay, t he ro ad w ay i s, o f ne ce ssi t y, so nar r ow t hat i t vi ol at es T ex. T r ans . Co de § 25 1. 00 7, Cl as s i f i cat i on of

Co un t y Ro ads ; at a mi ni mum, a c ount y r oad m u st b e twe n ty f

e e t wid e w ith a c a u se w a y o f at lea st 1 2 fee t. (In this c o n te x t, “c a u se w a y” se e m s to m e a n “sh o u ld e r,” but i t does not appear t o be def i ned i n a ny s t at ut e. ) T wen t y f eet i s mo r e t han wi de en ough t o al l ow t wo nor mal

- s i zed v e h ic le s to p a ss w itho u t i n c id e n t. something that hadn’t happe ned yet.” She a lso testified that, at the time of the a rre s t s, “the e ntire roadw ay was c losed bec ause of

media or pr otestors or law e nforc ement.” Def ense c ounsel also aske d L ieutenant Smi t h wh et her the demonstrators we re on the roadw ay , and she r eplied, “N o.” She stated that the tents p o s ed a hazard to the demonstrators beca use of the pa ssing ve hicles. L ieutenant Smith also te stified that it would not be considere d an 11 ob str uc tio n o f t

he ro a dw ay

to l e ave a

c ar in the ba

r d itc h, but r e sid ingins ide a te nt, or a te nt a s a
se mi- pe rm ane nt s tr

uc tur e , w ou ld l imi t a

pe rs on ’s a

bil ity to v ie w the surr ound ingare a ; th e re fo re , it was de emed a

n obstruction. 12 Sgt. Channon wa s shown state’s e x hibit 21 and concede d that it depicted two truc ks, side by side “on the little road” and that they wer e not off the road. The cross-e x amination continued. [De fe ns e ]: I s it

–what’ s th e pr ob a

bil ity that the se pe op le wi th d e mon str ator s st and inga ll around the m beside a te nt are g oing to have a c ar come by at such a spe ed that he c an’t stay on the ro a d an d ful fi ll its leg a l obli g atio n to drive on the pave me nt? What are the c ha nc e s? How re asonable is it t o assume that’s g oing to ha ppen? Sgt. Channon: I

think that it’s very

rea sonable. Reporter ’s Recor d, vol. 3, p. 109. When asked at trial if she wa s in the street, a ppellant Har dy

stated, Iwas n’t in a

str e e t. And

you kn ow , a s I

lis te ne d to [the sh e ri ff

s’ testimony ,]–i f the off

icer had said: ‘This is a dang erous place . We’re9

B ut s ee T EX . G OV ' T . C O D E § 31 1. 01 2(a) ; “ W ords i n t he pres ent t ens e i ncl ude t he f ut ur e t ens e. ” 13 conce rned a

bout your saf

ety . We need f

or y ou to back up or g et out be c a us e we are c on c e rn e d ab out y our sa fe ty ,’ I wo uld have g ott e n o ut. Idid n’ t w ant t o g e t ar

re ste d for be ing un sa fe . I wa nte d to be a

ble to sp e ak out
. . .. I wa

nte d to g e t arr e ste d a s a re su lt of [ th e no -t e nt] ordinanc e. On direc t examination, appellant Myers state d that, if he would have kno wn t h at he wa s g oin gto b e c ha

rg e d w ithob str

uc tin gthe ro a dw ay , h e wo uld have g ott e n o ut o f t

he te nt. De fe ns e
counse l al so asked him whethe r he intentionally or knowing ly

obstructed a

street, he replied, “ I absolutely

was not obstructinga stree t.” The jury found them guilty , and the tria l court fined e ach a ppellant $150.00. On a pp e a l to the Te nth

Court of Ap pe a ls, a

pp e lla nts argued th at th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly insufficient to sustain their convic tions because the state fa iled to prove that they cr eated an obstruction within the meaningof § 42.03. Ha rd y v . S tate , 250 S.W .3d 133, 138 (Tex. App.–Waco 2008). The state ar gued that it wa s not ne cessa ry to pr ove that there was an obstruction of the stre et be c a us e a pp e lla nts we re no t c ha

rg e d w ithob str

uc tin ga str e e t, b ut w ith di sobe yinga re a so na ble reque st or order t o move i ssued by a pea ce of fice r to preve nt an obstruction of the stre et. Id. The court of a ppeals re verse d appellants’ c onvictions and rende red judgments of ac quittal. I t held that the potential or possibility for obstruc tion of the roadw ay m u s t b e present or immediate for a

conviction under 42.03(a) (2)( A). The statute does not indicate that the re mote possibili ty

of an obstruc tion is a violation. The sta tu t e uses the present te ns e , a nd a statut or y c on str uc tio n that inc lud e d p os sib le futur e ob str uc tio ns wo uld be entire ly

too broad. B y

its plain langua g e, s ection 42.03 re quires that ther e be a n a c tu a l o b s tr

u c t i o no r an i m m e d i at e l y p o s s i b l e o b s tr u c t i o n o f a s tr e e to r p a s s a g e w ay. Id
. 13 Th e state pe tit ion e d th is C ourt fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w, a sse rt ingthat th e c ourt of a pp e a ls10

“ H i ghway” i s no t de f

i ned i n t he P enal C o d e. T he jur y charge defi ned “ hi ghway” by us i ng pa rt of t he 14 d ef i ni t i o n f o und i n T rans p o rt at i o n C o d e § 47 2
. 0 2 1 (d)(2): “ ‘ hi ghway or s t reet ’ m eans t he wi d t h be t ween t he b o und ary l i nes of

a pub l i cl y m ai nt ai ned way any p art of whi ch i s o p en t o t he p ub l i c f o r vehi cul ar t ravel
. ” T he def i n i t i on i n t h e T r an s por t at i on Code i s mor e det ai l ed. T h e appl i ca t i on por t i on of t h e ch ar g e t o t h e j u r y i n a ppel l an t H ar dy ’ s c as e r ea d: N O W , T H E R E F O R E , i f yo u fi n d a n d b e liev e fro m the e v id e n c e b e yo n d a re a so n a b le dou bt t h at t h e D ef

en dan t , Emi l y V i r g i n i a H ar dy , i n t h e cou n t y of M cL en n an a n d St at e of T exas, heret o f

o re on o r abo ut t he 1 4 da y of A p ri l , A
. D
. 20 0 6 , did t hen an t here, wi t ho ut th l eg al pr i v i l eg e or a u t h or i t y , i n t en t i on al l y or k n owi n g l y di s obey a r ea s on abl e r equ es t or did not revie w the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdict whe n it found that the evidenc e was insuffic ient. Specifica lly , the state a sserts that § 42.03(a) (2)( A) does not r equire that there be
an ac tual obstruction or a n i m m ediately possible obstruction of a stre et or a passag ewa

y , that the court of a

ppeals incor

rec tly conducte d i ts leg al-suff iciency analy sis by

ignoring e vidence that supported the ve rdict, and that a pea ce of fice r’s subjec t i v e intent is irreleva nt to a revie w of the
s u ff i ci en cy o f t h e e v i d en ce . W e gran t ed th e st at e’ s p et i t i o n t o re v i ew th e c o urto f ap p ea l s ’s h o l d i n g. Stand ard of Review Whe n re vie wi ng a c ha lle ng e to the le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to e sta bli shthe e le me nts of a pe na l of fe ns e , w e mus t de te rm ine wh e the r, a ft e r v ie wi nga ll the e vid e nce i n th e li ght mo st favor able to the ve rdict, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the es s en t i al elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Kut zn e r v . S tate , 994 S.W .2d 180, 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999);

se eals o J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979). The Due Process Cl ause protects an acc used ag ainst conviction except upon proof be yond
a re asonable doubt of eve ry fac t nece ssary

to c onstitut e the crime with which he is cha rg ed. Gollihar

v . S tate , 46 S.W .3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Sufficienc y of the ev i d en ce i s measure d by the elements of the offense a s defined by a hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e. Ma lik, 953 S.W .2d at 235; Jack son, 443 U.S. at 307. 1411

order t o m ove i s s ued by Sgt
. Jan et Smi t h, a per s on t he def endan t kn ew t o be peace of f i cer w ith a u tho rity to c o n tro l t h e us e o f t h e p re m ise s, to p re v e n t o b stru c tio n o f a stre e t, to -w it: P rai ri e C hap el R o ad and M o rgan R o ad , C rawf o rd, T exas, t o whi ch t he p ub l i c o r a s u bs t an t i al g r ou p of

t h e pu bl i c h ad ac ce s s , t h en y ou w i l l f i n d t h e D ef

en dan t g u i l t y . I f

y ou d o not so f

i nd and be l i eve o r i f

y o u have a reas o nab l e d o ub t t hereo f , t hen y o u wi l l f

i nd t he D e fen d a n t no t gu ilt y. Furt her, i f

y o u f i nd and be l i eve f

rom t he evi d ence b eyond a reas o nab l e d o ub t t hat t he o rder, i f gi ven, was manif

est l y reas o nab l e i n s co p e, t hen y o u s hal l f i nd t he D ef

end ant g u i l t y . I f

y ou do n ot do f

i n d a n d be l i ev e, or i f

y ou h av e a r ea s on abl e dou bt t h er eof , y ou w ill fi n d the D e fen d a n t no t gu ilt y. Final l y , i f

y o u f i nd and be l i eve f

rom t he evi d ence b eyond a reas o nab l e d o ub t t hat t he or der , i f g i v en , w as n ot pr ompt l y obe y ed, y ou s h al l f i n d t h e D ef

en dan t g u i l t y . I f

y ou do no t s o f i nd and be l i eve, or i f

y o u have a reas o nab l e d o ub t t hereo f , y o u wi l l f

i nd t he D e fen d a n t no t gu ilt y. T h re a d g ill so ld fi re w o rk s fro m two se m i-t ra iler s p a rk e d o n the sid e o f a ro a d in H a rr is C o u n ty an d o ff 15 t he p aved area. C ust o m ers s t o p p ed t hei r vehi cl es al o ng and on t he road , creat i ng a t raf f i c hazard when som e o f t he cust o m ers ’ cars ob st ruct ed a pa rt of t he p aved po rt i o n of t he road
. T he st at e charged T hread gi l l wi t h ob st ruct i ng t he r oadw ay i n s t ea d of

c h ar g i n g t h e cu s t omer s w h os e ca r s w er e i n t h e r oadw ay . T h i s Cour t h el d t h at t h e s t at u t e di d n ot p ro h ib it p a rk ing a ve h ic le o n a p u b lic h igh w a y, o n ly p a rk ing in su c h a w a y to o b stru c t p a ssa g e . Argum ents of the P artie s Appellants conte nd that the evidence was leg ally insufficient to convict them of disobeying
a re asonable order

to preve nt obstruction of a highway or st ree t. Fur

ther, they asser t that the court of a pp e a ls c or

re c tly he ld t hat to c onvic t a

de fe nd ant o f d iso be yingan o ff ic e r’ s o rd e r t o move to p r e v e n to b s tr

u c t i o no f a r o a d , th e p o t e n t i a l o b s tr u c t i o nmu s tb e m o r e th ana hyp o th e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i ty; it mustbe imminently

probable
. The state a

rgues that the c ourt of appe als err ed i n its int erpr etation of § 42.03(a )(2) (A) beca use it relied on c ase la

w that per

tains exclusively

to § 42.03(a)( 1), which is used f or pre s ent ob str uc tio ns . It c onte nd s th at Thre ad gil l v . S tate , 241 S.W .2d 151, 152-53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951), should not be used as pre cede nt beca use i t perta ins to a present obs truction and not a potential one. 15 The state a lso asserts that the pl ai n l an guag e of § 42.03( a)( 2)(A) makes c lear that an ac tual or immediately

possible obstruction is not a prerequisite. Thus, it argues t hat “the require ment for a n12

actua l obstruction is absurd.” Rules of S tatutor y Construction Our fir st rule of statutory construction is to presume that the leg islature mea nt what it said. State v. Vasilas , 1 8 7 S
. W
. 3 d 4 8 6 , 4 8 9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Seals v. State, 187 S.W .3d 41 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 )) . T he Cod e Con str uc tio n A c t in str

uc ts that “ [w]or ds and

phra se s sh a ll be r e a d in c o n te xt an d c o n s tr u e d a c c o r d in g to th e r

u le s o f g r amm ar an d c o mm o n u s a g e.” T EX . G OV ' T . C ODE § 311.011(a)
. Section 311.021 of that code, Intention in Enac tment of Statutes, states that [i]n e na c tin ga

statut e , it is p re sume d th at: (1) c ompliance with the c onstitut ions of this state and the United States is intended; (2) the e ntire statute is intended to be e ffe ctive; (3) a just and rea sonable re sult is i ntended; (4) a result fe asible of e x ecution is intended; and (5 ) p ub lic int e re st i s f

avo re d o ve r a

ny pr ivate int e re st. Sec. 311.023, Statute Construction Aids, tells us that [i]n c on str

uin ga statut e , whe the r o r n ot t

he statut e is c on si der e d ambi guo us on its fac e, a c ourt may

consider a

mong othe r matters the (1) objec t sought to be attained; (2) c ircumstance s under whic h the statute wa s enac ted; ( 3 ) l e g i s l at i v e h i s t o r

y; (4) c ommon law or for

mer statutory

provisions, in cl u d ing la

ws upon the same or sim ila r s ub je c ts; (5) c onsequenc es of a

particula r construc tion; (6) a dminist rative c onstruction of the statute; and (7) title, pre amble, and e merg ency provision. Section 1.05(a) of the Pena l Code, Con s t ru ct i o n of Code, instructs us that the “r ule that a pe nal statute is to be strictly

construed doe s not apply to this code. The pr ovisions o f t h is code shall be construed a ccor ding to the f air import of their te rms, to pr omote justice and e ffe ct the objec tives of the code .”13 Ana lys is All but one of the few re p o rt ed ca s es t hat addr ess the import of a violation § 42.03 as the primary offe nse i nvolve actual obstruction of a passag ewa y and the inter

pretation of § 42.03(a) (1). T h e only case that deals spec ifically with § 42.03(a)( 2), Bu sti llo v . S tate , 8 3 2 S
. W
. 2 d6 6 8 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ), a lso inv olv e d a c tua l ob str uc tio n o f a pa ssa g e wa

y . Thus it a

pp e ars that th is c a se is one of first impression: what pr oof does a conviction pursuant to § 42.03(a )(2) (A) r equire when no actua l obstruction occur red? T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 42.03 states that (a) A per son commits an offense if, without leg al priv i l ege o r authority , he i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn o w i n g l y, o r r e c k l e s s l y: (1 ) o b s t ructs a highway , street, sidew alk, ra ilway , water way , elevator, aisle, hallway , e n tr an c e , o r e xit to w h ic h th e p u b li c o r a s u

b s ta n ti a l g r o u p of the pu bli c ha s a c c e ss, or

any oth e r p la c e us e d fo r the pa ssa g e of pe rs on s, ve hic le s, or conve y an ces, reg ardle ss of the mea ns of cr eatingthe obstruction and wh e the r t he ob str uc tio n a ri se s f ro m hi s a c ts a lon e or fr om his a c ts and the a c ts of others; or (2) disobey s a reasonable reque st or order to move issued by

a per son the ac tor kn ow s to b e o r

i s i n f o r m e d i s a p e a c e o f f i c e r , a f i r e m an , o r

a p e r s o nw i th a uth or ity to c ontr ol t

he us e of the pr e mis e s: (A) to pr event obstruction of a highw ay or any of those are as mentioned in Subdivis ion (1); or (B ) to maintain public safe ty by dispersingthose g ather ed in dang erous proxi mity to a fire , riot, or other hazard. (b) F or purpose s of this section, “obstruct” means to re nder impassa ble or to re nder pa ssa g e unre a so na

bly inc onve nie nt o r h a zar do us . Th e st ate appea

rs to c on fl ate the c ounty or din anc e and

the statut e . Wh ile the c ounty
o rdi nance barr ed structur es in the right-of-w ay , the statute under which appe llants were charg ed prohibits obstruc tion only of the part of a road ease ment that is use d for vehicular trave l. In t he statute, obstruct “me ans to rende r impassable or to rende r p as sag e unre asonably inconvenient or hazardous , ” b u tthe state’s e vidence emphasized “obstruc tion” as the lac k of ability of the14

T he s t at ed i nt ent of

t he deput i es t o kee p t he pers ons i n t he t ent f r om ha r m f

r om i mp endi ng dang er 16 a p p a re n tly d id no t ex te n d to p e rs o n s se a te d in the rig h t o f wa y a n d w ithin ten fee t o f t h e p a v e m e n t.

B ot h a pp el l ant s t es t i f i ed t hat t hey un ders t oo d t hat t he po i nt of t he ci vi l

- di s ob edi enc e demons t r at i on was 17 cha l l eng i ng t he count y ordi nan ce prohi bi t i ng t ent s , but t hey wer e i ns t ead ch ar ged wi t h v i ol at i ng § 42
. 03 of t he P ena l C o d e , O b stru c ting H igh w a y o r O the r P a ssa g e w a y. demonstrators to view their surrounding s and thereby to be aware of any impending da ng er. Per sons wh o s at in c ha ir s next to the te nts we re no t ar re ste d an d ch arg e d with ob str uc tin ga highw ay be c a us e
a chair “ty pically isn’t larg e enough to obstruct one’s view .” The obstructed view of a de monstrator d o es n o t s at i s fy th e de fi n i t i o n o f “o b s tru ct ” in th e st atut e–t o re n d er i mp as s ab l e or t o re n d er p as s age
unrea sonably

inconvenient or

hazardous. In common usag e, “highway ” is an a rea that has bee n modified so that it may

be used for vehicular travel. This meaning comports with the text of § (a)(1) , wh ic h p ro hib its ob str

uc tio n of any pla c e us e d f

or the pa ssa g e of

pe rs on s, ve hic le s, or

c onve yanc e s. The statute e x presse s conce rn for the s afe ty of t hose who are trave ling, not those who may be on the sid e of the ro a d. Th e state mus t th e re fo re pr ov e mor e tha n th at th e de mon str ator s w e re g athe re d in the ba r d itc he s, wh ic h a

re are a s th at are no t inte nd e d to be us e d f or ve hic ula r t ra ve l. 16 Appellants we re charg ed with disobeying an reasonable order to move so that they would not become an obstruction as de fined in T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 4 2. 03(b)
. Re a d in a c c or da nc e wi th 17 g rammar , context, and co m m o n usag e, a pe rson commits an offe nse if, without leg al privileg e or authority , he ( 1 ) d i s o b e ys (2) a rea sonable orde r to move (3) issued by

a per son who has author ity to control the use of

the pre mises, and (4) the r easona

ble orde r is issued for the purpose of preve nting the obstruction of a highway or any of the other

are as mentioned in § (a )(1)
.15

Applying the rules of statutory construction, we must give effe ct to the entire statute and
arr ive at a just a

nd rea sonable result that can be fea sibly executed. We may also consider

the object soug ht to be attained a

nd the conse quence s of a pa rticular c onstruction. Th e c le ar o bje c t so ught t o b e ob ta ine d b y thi s se c tio n is to m a int a in t he a bil ity of pe rs on s,
ve hic le s, or conve yanc e s to mov e fr e e ly a lon gpu bli c pa ssa g e wa

y s ( §§ (a )( 1) , ( a )( 2) (A )) and to
e na ble a uth or iti e s to move c iti zen s awa y fr om h a zar do us c on dit ion s ( § ( a )( 2) (B )) . Se c tio n ( a )( 1) is unambiguously intended to c riminaliz e actua l obstruction of a public pa ssag ewa y , thus § (a)( 2)(A) cannot mea

n the same thingif we, a s directe d, g ive ef fec t to each pa

rt of the statute. We conclude that, b eca

use the leg islature chose to use “pre vent” r ather than “r emove,” an
a c tua l ob str

uc tio n is no t r e qu ir e d, but w e a lso c on c lud e that th e us e of “pre vent” ind ic ate s th at a potential obstruction must ex ist. Cons ideringthe potential of a n obstruction in relation to the definition of “highway” as a place used for

the passag e of pe rsons, vehicle s, o r conve yance s, we
c on c lud e tha

t any po te nti a l obstru c tio n mu st b e c a pa ble of re nd e ri ngthe highw ay

imp a ssa ble or to rende r passa g e unre asonably inco n v en i en t or hazardous. An e x ample mig ht be the pre sence of persons standingon the paved are a of a road at a time when no vehicles are prese nt. They are not a pre sent obstruction, as passa g e is not beingimpeded, but t h ey h av e t h e potential to become an ob str uc tio n if ve hic le s a

pp ro a c h and

the y do no t mo ve . I f t

he pa ra de is a pp ro a c hin gand

an a uth or ity order s them to g et off the road a nd they do so, no violation of any part of § 42.03 is shown. I f they do not move , they then may be convicted of disobeying an order intended to pr event an obstruction. One might also “obstruct” a highway by aiming a strobe lig ht at oncomingtraff ic, there by

rende ring passag e unre asonably

hazardous, but cavor

ting on the side walk while dr essed a s a g orilla would not “obstruct” a highway . A larg e obje ct p l ac ed on the side of the roa d, but in the line of sight on a16

c ur ve in t he ro a d, might a lso “ ob str uc t,” a lth ou g h a sm a lle r o bje c t in the same loc atio n w ou ld n ot. In sum, a n order

to move to preve nt an obstruction must be rea sonable in the pre vailing
c ir c ums tanc e s. Th is i nte rp re t a

t i o n f o l l ow s th e pla in l angua g e of the statut e , d oe s n ot p ro du c e an a bs ur d r e su lt that the leg islature could not possibly have intended, y et produces a just and rea sonable re sult that
c an b e fe a sib ly

e xec ute d. In th e pr e se nt c ir c ums tanc e s, su c h a n o rd e r t o mo ve wo uld

be re a so na

ble as to persons who w ere milli ng about and stray ing onto the highway . It would be unre asonable when applied to per sons, such as appe llants, who were order ed to re main in the bar ditch a nd off of the road a nd did so. When L ieutenant Smith ga ve the initial war

ning to a ppellants on April 14 , she instructed th them to stay

in the bar ditche s and off of t he road to “kee p you safe , preve nt interfer ence with traff ic, and prote ct the saf

ety of t he traveling public.” This war ning indicates that the ba

r ditches we re not considere d by

the authorities to be a

part of the road a

nd that the demonstrator s would not obstruct the hig hway

if they rema ined in the bar

ditch. The state’s witnesses all testified that the demonstrators did not actua lly obstruct the roa d and that th e de mon str ator s, inc lud ing a pp e lla nts , re ma ine d at al l time s in the ba r dit c h, an a

re a c omm on ly
us e d f or sta nd ingand pa rk e d v e hic le s. No thi ng in t he re c or d in dic ate s th at a

pp e lla nts , b y sittin gin
a sma ll t e nt e re c te d in

the ba r d itc h o r b y

any oth e r c on du c t, r e nd e re d p a ssa g e mor e unre a so nab ly i n convenient or hazardous than by sitti ngin a cha ir in the same loca tion. Neither is there any evidenc e that the tents themselve s obstructed pa ssag e or ma de it hazardous. The case s cited by the state ar e inapposite, a s they al l i n v o l v e an ac tual obstruction of passa g e, not an or der by an authorized person to move to pre vent an obstruc tion.17

Fur ther, the statute require s disobedience of an order to move s o as t o preve nt an obstruction. Th e ini tia l “ no tic e ” wa s a re a so na ble or de r that re qu ir e d th e de mon str ator s to mov e to, and re ma in in, the bar ditch, a

nd they complied. Howeve r, the “ war ning” to the demonstrators instructe d them to take down the te nts; itdid not order the m t o m o v e s o that neither the y nor the tents obstructe d passag e. I f appe llants had collapsed the tents and sat on t h em i n the same loc ation, they , like the demonstrators who sat in chairs next to the ten t s , would not have be en ar rested. T he ar

rests we re based on the prohibition in the county ordinanc e on ere cting tents, even empty ones, in the bar

ditch, not for disobeying a

rea sonable orde r to move from a passag ewa y and there by avoid becomingan obstruction. Proof that appe llants v i o lated the c ounty ordinanc e is not proof that they violated § 42.03(a) (2)( A). Viewingall the evid en ce in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, no rational trier of f act could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Although w e do
no t a do pt t

he c ourt of a pp e a ls’ s r e a so nin g , it

pr op e rl y c on c lud e d th at the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f c ourt

of a pp e a ls.

Deliver ed: April 22, 2009 Pub lis h