Opinion ID: 891567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Disturbing the Tranquility of the Community and Incitement

Text: {31} As we indicated above, the Legislature has not provided guidance on what it means to disturb the peace. In 1966, when we drew an analogy between disturbing the peace and breach of the peace in Florstedt, we identified three categories of conduct that may satisfy the second element of disorderly conduct: (1) an actual act of violence; (2) an act likely to incite another to violence; and (3) an act that disturbs the peace and tranquility of the community. 77 N.M. at 49, 419 P.2d at 249 (disturbing the peace is 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 (quoting Most, 64 N.E. at 177)). In the 43 years following that decision, this Court has never had occasion to consider a case where an accused's conduct was alleged to have disturbed the tranquility of the community. Although the State theoretically could have made such an argument here, considering the time, place, and manner of Defendant's conduct, it did not do so in its briefing. On appeal, issues not briefed are considered abandoned, and we do not raise them on our own. [11] State v. Gee, 2004-NMCA-042, ¶ 25, 135 N.M. 408, 89 P.3d 80. {32} At trial, the State noted that Defendant's yelling was loud enough that it attracted his neighbors. However, the State never argued, as an independent basis for Defendant's conviction, that his yelling amounted to unreasonably loud noise which disturbed the tranquility of the neighborhood. Rather, the State focused on how Defendant's behavior impacted the officers and Harrison. On appeal, the State claims that the three-hour duration of the incident caused the police to fear for their personal safety and for the safety of Mr. Root and the neighbors living adjacent to Defendant. Because the State does not advocate that Defendant's behavior tended to disturb or incite his neighborsa conclusion not apparent from the recordwe do not consider further the impact of Defendant's behavior on the surrounding community in our review. {33} However, the State did argue, both to the trial court and on appeal, that Defendant's behavior incited Harrison to breach the peace. See Hawkins, 1999-NMCA-126, ¶¶ 12-13. We rely on Hawkins, a factually similar case, where the Court of Appeals discussed disorderly conduct by incitement. {34} In Hawkins, two police officers entered Hawkins's property in pursuit of a criminal suspect. After the officers apprehended the suspect, one reentered Hawkins's backyard to search for evidence. Hawkins followed and confronted the officer, yelling, This isn't a f___ing crack house and Get out of my f___ing yard. Id. ¶ 4. These statements were overheard by workers installing a pool in Hawkins's backyard. The officers arrested Hawkins for disorderly conduct and, on Hawkins's appeal of his conviction, the State argued that Defendant's conduct created the possibility that the workmen in [Hawkins's] backyard would be incited to aid [Hawkins] and precipitate a breach of the peace. Id. ¶ 12. The Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence that [the workers] were negatively affected by or reacted in any way to the statements. The mere fact that people may have heard Defendant's remarks, however loud or offensive they may have been, is insufficient to support a charge of disorderly conduct. There must be evidence that the remarks were likely to incite the listeners to breach the peace. Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). The State argues that the present case is similar to Hawkins, but that, unlike the workers in Hawkins, there is evidence that Harrison actually reacted to Defendant's statements by mimicking his behavior. We are not persuaded. {35} The evidence establishes that Harrison joined Defendant at the front door during Defendant's initial contact with the police officers and Harrison, like Defendant, shouted aggressive and profane statements to the officers. At trial, Officer Townsend testified that, during the initial contact, [Defendant] was calm but maybe within one sentence later he elevated his voice, profanities, very upset over the fact that police were there at the house. And I guess the tall, Native American later identified as Marty Harrison, began to mimic that same behavior screaming, using profanity as well. (Emphasis added.) Officer Townsend's opinion is the only statement in the record to suggest that Harrison mimicked Defendant, and the trial court relied on this statement as evidence that Defendant incited Harrison. However, Officer Townsend's guess is merely speculation and fails to establish a causal connection between Defendant's conduct and Harrison's. {36} Harrison testified at trial and was asked on cross-examination: [Prosecutor:] Did [Defendant] yelling and being so upset have any effect on you? [Harrison:] No, sir, not at all. [Prosecutor:] So you didn't have any reaction to him being [Harrison:] No. [Prosecutor:] Do you think you still would have been angry if he had been perfectly calm? [Harrison:] Yes.... {37} Moreover, as we discussed above, shouting profanity at police officers, without more, does not itself amount to a breach of the peaceno different for Harrison than for Defendant. We can find no evidence to show a causal connection that Harrison was influenced by or reacted as a consequence of Defendant's behavior. This evidence is insufficient to establish that Defendant incited Harrison to breach the peace.