Opinion ID: 884315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was there sufficient evidence for the District Court to convict Granby of the offense of disorderly conduct?

Text: The District Court found that Granby knowingly and intentionally disturbed the peace ... by making loud or unusual noises, and/or using threatening, profane or abusive language, by accusing Delores Aaberg of `screwing around' and using abusive language concerning Ms. Aaberg's sexual life and by using his hands in a lewd manner suggesting masturbation.... Section 45-8-101(1), MCA, provides: A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct if he knowingly disturbs the peace by: ... (b) making loud or unusual noises; (c) using threatening, profane, or abusive language; .... Granby presents a constitutional challenge to his disorderly conduct conviction. He argues that his conduct during the incident at Aaberg's residence did not rise to the level of fighting words designed to provoke or incite violence and, therefore, his conduct constitutes protected speech as defined in City of Billings v. Batten (1985), 218 Mont. 64, 218 Mont. 64, 705 P.2d 1120. However, Granby failed to raise this constitutional challenge to his conviction in the District Court and it is therefore waived pursuant to § 46-20-104(2), MCA. In City of Columbia Falls v. Bennett (1991), 247 Mont. 298, 301, 806 P.2d 25, 27, this Court rejected the appellant's constitutional challenge to the disorderly conduct statute for failure to raise the issue in his opening appellate brief. Because the constitutionality of the statute was not at issue, it was not necessary for the Court to apply the constitutional interpretation of the statute set out in Batten, that a person's conduct or language must constitute fighting words in order for a conviction to stand. Instead, the Court simply analyzed whether the appellant's language and conduct constituted threatening, profane, or abusive language in violation of the disorderly conduct statute as written. Bennett, 806 P.2d at 26-27. We apply the same analysis here. Both parties testified that they were heatedly arguing with each other in the presence of others. Both Aaberg and Granby's friend testified that Granby stated did you get enough dick today and used abusive and profane gestures. Granby's friend testified that he had to break up the fight and haul Granby away. When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that Granby knowingly disturbed the peace by using threatening, profane, or abusive language and gestures. Therefore, we hold that there was sufficient evidence to convict Granby of the offense of disorderly conduct and affirm his conviction on this charge.