Court Opinion

ID: 9793458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:48:13.512315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:09.596138
License: Public Domain

*486NOYES, Judge,
dissenting.
¶ 18 The facts in this case were provided by Ms-. Ferrero, the school principal — and named victim. Her testimony is at the end of this opinion, so readers can draw their own conclusions about the facts.1 The one *487other witness was a police officer, whose only material testimony was as follows: “[Juvenile] told me that he had kicked a chair or pushed it with his foot. He told me that he did not tell Ms. Ferrero fuck you.”
¶ 19 The weakness of the facts in this case — in relation to the elements of the disorderly conduct statute — is highlighted by the following passage from the State’s rebuttal argument:
The juvenile was removed from the classroom because of what he said and because [of] what he did. And I’m asking the Court to find because of those actions and because of what the juvenile did, he was disruptive. And he was disruptive to the extent that he had to be removed from the classroom. We would ask the Court find him guilty of the charge.
¶ 20 I agree that the juvenile was disruptive to the extent that he had to be removed from the classroom (when class was not in session). But this is not a school discipline case; it is a criminal ease. To convict on the facts in this case, I respectfully suggest, is to remove “seriously” from the disorderly conduct statute’s element of “seriously disruptive behavior.”
¶21 The majority cites State v. Johnson, 112 Ariz. 383, 542 P.2d 808 (1975), for the proposition that “evidence of actual disturbance is not required,” as if to suggest that one can be convicted of disorderly conduct without creating a disturbance. Johnson has no application in this case. The Johnson defendant was charged with disturbing the peace of a neighborhood, and the court rejected his argument that the State had to prove that he disturbed the peace of some specific person in the neighborhood. Id. at 385, 542 P.2d at 810. In the present case, however, the juvenile was in fact charged with disturbing the peace of a specific person, “to wit: Sandra Ferrero, by engaging in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior.”
¶ 22 The juvenile focused much argument on freedom of speech issues. I agree that his profanity was not criminal, but I will not argue the point because the court made clear that it did not convict the juvenile for profanity. When denying the juvenile’s motion for reconsideration, the court stated as follows:
[Defense counsel], for the record, your motion indicates that the decision was based on the child’s use of profanity. The decision was based primarily on the disruption caused by kicking of the chair in the classroom. I did read your information on use of profanity and that was not a significant matter.
¶23 With or without the child’s use of profanity, his kicking this chair in the classroom (when class was not in session) was not seriously disruptive behavior. This conviction should be reversed for insufficient evidence.

. Q. [To the victim by the Prosecutor] Do you recall how many students were in the classroom that day?
A. I don't know exactly the exact count because we were in a transition period going from morning session into the first hour.
Q. You asked Julio — did you ask Julio why he was not in uniform [i.e., not wearing blue pants]?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he give you any explanation as to why he was not in his uniform?
A. He said it wasn't clean.
Q. Did you ask him to leave the classroom?
A. I asked — he—it was an ongoing thing. It started opening session. He was talking when the teachers were giving their overview of what was happening. During the class you have to get proper attention. You have to raise your hand to get a G.T.A. Getting a teacher's attention appropriately.
Julio was just having a bad morning all around. And I asked him several times to come out because I heeded to do an interaction with him.
Q. Did he come out of the classroom?
A. After I asked him several times, yes, he did. But before he did—
Q. What did he do when you asked him to come out of the classroom? Did he do something specific?
A. First I asked him while in the process of moving from one classroom to another, I asked him to come out, he just kept walking. And I said, come on, Julio, we have to do interaction. He said, no. He went to go sit down.
Q. Did you ask him to come out again?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did he say then?
A. He said no.
Q. Did you ask him a third time to come out of the classroom?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said fuck you and he kicked the chair next to him.
Q. Thenhegotup?
A. Then he kicked over the chair and came out.
Q. Were there other students in the classroom at that time?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. Do you recall how many?
A. I would say three or four.
Q. How loudly did he say fuck you?
A. I heard it and he was sitting where Officer Maya is and where I was. I was standing where sitting right here.
Q. What tone of voice did he use?
A. He was angry and he said fuck you and he kicked the chair.
Q. How did you react to that?
A. I said that's an officer referral, come on, let’s go.
Q. And did he walk quietly to the office?
A. He didn’t yell down the hallway, no, but he was still talking under his breath.
Q. Did you notice if any of the other students in the classroom appeared to have heard Julio?
A. I wasn’t focusing on anyone else in the classroom. I had all my attention on Julio because I wanted to remove him as quickly as possible from the class.
Q. Okay. Okay. What kind of chair did he kick over?
A. It was a plastic chair, approximately — we call them middle school chairs. It was plastic, hard chair with four legs.
Q. [By Defense Counsel] So in other words there was no profanity after the fuck you, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the fuck you was not shouted, was it?
A. No.
Q. Now, when he kicked the chair, you told me yesterday, you don’t know whether it actually tipped over?
A. It was tipped.
Q. But it moved about a yard you said?
A. Ah-hum.
Q. It didn’t strike anybody at that time?
A. No, at that time.
Q. The juvenile squared off like he was going to fight you?
A. No.
Q. He did not physically provoke you, like you had to fight him, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. And he didn’t say anything to you indicating that he wanted to fight you, is that accurate?
A. No. I mean, no, he did not.
Q. When did you — you told me and correct me if I am wrong — at that point you didn't think to suspend him, not after the fact, but when he kept arguing about going to the office and you said, if you keep arguing back, it was going to be suspension, and he said, go ahead, is that correct?
A. Ah-hum.
Q. Is that right?
A. It was going — yeah, I couldn’t let him back into the classroom after he said fuck you. I couldn’t do that.
Q. Initially you were just going to bring him to the office and do some kind of disciplinary action, but when he kept arguing what was going to happen, you said, if you keep arguing back, it will be suspension and then he said, go ahead, is that accurate?
A. Ah-hum.
*487Q. So you told me about when he said fuck you, and that is all part of this depersonalizing thing as an administrative professional, you know enough not to let it get to you, is that correct?
A. Talking about personally or administratively?
Q. Administratively?
A. Administratively. I am offended administratively.
Q. But not personally?
A. Personally because of the training, no. I don’t internalize it. I go on with it. But administratively I need to deal with it.
Q. And that is what you did, is that correct, you dealt with it administratively by suspending him, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So, to clarify, when he said this to you, you didn’t feel frightened, you didn’t feel physically provoked in any way, is that correct?
A. Honestly, physically I did feel offended, but I’ve got to maintain my composure all of the time.
Q. You didn't feel physically like he was provoking you to come and beat him up, or fight him, is that correct?
A. No, he was being defiant.