Opinion ID: 1493769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Disorderly Conduct in the Home

Text: The defendant alleged and the amici argue to this Court that when considered collectively, the words fighting, threatening, violent, and tumultuous, indicate a legislative intent to prevent a public disturbance or breach of the public peace. However, § 11-45-1(a)(1) does not specify that conduct must occur in a public place in contrast to § 11-45-1(a)(2) which does so specify that disorderly conduct refers to loud and unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that the accused had no right to occupy, which under the circumstances would disturb a person of average sensibilities[.] If the Legislature intended to limit the reach of § 11-45-1(a)(1) to conduct occurring in public, it could have done so. However, there is no suggestion in subsection (a)(1) that the behavior must occur in a public place or be directed at a member of the public and we are not persuaded that such a requirement was intended by the Legislature. In performing this analysis, we emphasize that there were at least two people living in the home on the evening in question; one was throwing furniture and the other called the police. It is our opinion that Mrs. Russell was entitled to be free from the defendant's violent and threatening behavior and had every right to seek the intervention of the Warwick Police Department. If we adopted the trial court's reasoning and the arguments of the amici, the defendant's activities would be immune from police involvement simply by virtue of the location. The police would have no authority to enter the home to arrest or restrain defendant. This is an absurd result that we decline to attribute to the Legislature. Domestic violence is a crime that, by definition, occurs within a family or a home where more than one person resides. We reject the contention that the home is off-limits to the police who may be summoned in an emergency; nor are we persuaded that violent conduct occurring in the home is insulated from arrest and prosecution. Disorderly conduct is an enumerated crime of domestic violence under § 12-29-2 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, the declared purpose of which is to recognize the importance of domestic violence as a serious crime against society and to assure victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse which the law and those who enforce the law can provide. Section 12-29-1(a). The protection of family members from violent and threatening behavior by one household member is the statutory policy of this state; to prevent differing treatment of crimes occurring between family or household members and of the same crimes occurring between strangers. Section 12-29-1(b). Our penal statutes shall be enforced without regard to whether the persons involved are or were married, cohabitating, or involved in a relationship. Section 12-29-1(c). Obviously, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act applies to crimes occurring in the home. The amici have raised a number of hypothetical situations to support the contention that prosecutions for conduct that do not amount to a breach of the public peace may lead to absurd results. However, this Court's review of a vagueness challenge to a statute is limited to the facts of the case at hand. Fonseca, 670 A.2d at 1240 (quoting Mazurie, 419 U.S. at 550, 95 S.Ct. 710). We will not consider how the statute may apply to a hypothetical defendant in another case; nor do we accept the argument that defendant was merely engaging in a form of expressive conduct, and a rather minor form at that. The amici contend that rather than taking his anger out on some furniture, [defendant] might have given voice to his frustration. As such, according to the amici, he could not be charged with a violation of § 11-45-1(a)(1). Unfortunately, defendant did not behave in a civilized manner and elected to threaten his wife and throw their furniture around the house and into the yard. This is not constitutionally protected conduct.