Court Opinion

ID: 9545591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:15:53.713164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:08.858666
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction of interfering with a peace officer, but dissent from the reversal of defendant’s conviction of disorderly conduct. I believe there is sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable person to find defendant guilty.
Defendant was charged with, and convicted of, disorderly conduct, a violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-102(l)(b)(i) (1978). This subsection does not require that the incident occur in a public place or that it involve “unreasonable noise,” as implied by the main opinion. The subsection merely provides that a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(b) Intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
(l) He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
[[Image here]]
The evidence indicated that the incident took place in the late evening hours in a residential area. There was testimony that voices inside defendant’s trailer were “boisterous,” and that three males inside the trailer could be seen “moving their arms” and “squaring off.” One witness testified that he could hear someone speaking loudly, and could see two males “standing nose to nose.” There was also testimony that defendant was “freaking out,” and that the brothers were angry with each other.
I believe the evidence indicates “tumultuous or threatening behavior” sufficient to support the offense charged. “Where there is any evidence, including reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it, from which findings of all the elements of the crime can be made beyond a reasonable doubt, our inquiry is complete and we will sustain the verdict.” State v. Gardner, 101 Utah Adv.Rep. 3, 10 (1989). I would, therefore, affirm defendant’s conviction of disorderly conduct.