Opinion ID: 891567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: {20} Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for disorderly conduct. Substantial evidence review requires analysis of whether direct or circumstantial substantial evidence exists and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential for conviction. We determine whether a rational factfinder could have found that each element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kent, 2006-NMCA-134, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86 (citations omitted). The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789. {21} Disorderly conduct is a petty misdemeanor, and occurs when an accused engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct which tends to disturb the peace. Section 30-20-1. This statutory provision has two elements: the conduct itself and the tendency of the conduct to disturb the peace. State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 12, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482. Both must be present. There is no question that Defendant's conduct satisfies the first element: his conduct reasonably could be seen as abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or unreasonably loud. The question for us to determine is whether that conduct could also be seen as tending to disturb the peace. {22} Our Legislature has not defined what it means to disturb the peace. Our courts have stated that the standard is whether defendant's conduct tends to disturb the public peace. State v. James M., 111 N.M. 473, 476, 806 P.2d 1063, 1066 (Ct.App. 1990). Conduct which tends to disturb the peace is that conduct `which is inconsistent with the peaceable and orderly conduct of society.' Id. (quoting State v. Oden, 82 N.M. 563, 565, 484 P.2d 1273, 1275 (Ct.App. 1971)). We have defined disturbing the peace as `a disturbance of public order by an act of violence, or by any act likely to produce violence, or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community.' State v. Florstedt, 77 N.M. 47, 49, 419 P.2d 248, 249 (1966) (quoting People v. Most, 171 N.Y. 423, 64 N.E. 175, 177 (1902)). We have construed the statute narrowly and, [u]nless the acts complained of fall clearly within the statute, they are not disorderly. Id. {23} The State argues that Defendant disturbed the peace in two ways: (1) by his use of fighting words directed toward the police officers, and (2) by inciting his companion, Harrison, to breach the peace. As we discuss in more detail below, the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction on either ground.