State v. Dronso, No. 78-701-CR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtBefore DECKER, C. J., CANNON, P. J., and MOSER; MOSER
Citation90 Wis.2d 110,279 N.W.2d 710
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DRONSO, Sr., Defendant-Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 78-701-CR
Decision Date30 April 1979

Page 710

279 N.W.2d 710
90 Wis.2d 110
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John DRONSO, Sr., Defendant-Respondent.
No. 78-701-CR.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Submitted on Briefs April 10, 1979.
Opinion Released April 30, 1979.
Opinion Filed April 30, 1979.

Page 711

[90 Wis.2d 111] Kirbie Knutson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.

James M. Shellow and Joan P. Clark of Shellow & Shellow, Milwaukee, on brief, for defendant-respondent.

[90 Wis.2d 112] Before DECKER, C. J., CANNON, P. J., and MOSER, J.

MOSER, Judge.

On April 6, 1978, the defendant, John Dronso, was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct contrary to sec. 947.01(2), Stats. 1 According to the complaint, Dronso

Page 712

had made several telephone calls to his wife and her relatives.

On one occasion Dronso allegedly called his wife's mother and, upon being told that his wife was not with her mother, said, "I want my money not your son-of-a-bitching fucking daughter, I just want my money." Dronso is also alleged to have called his wife's brother and said "Tonight your van is going to blow up."

Dronso allegedly called his wife three times and made the following three statements: "A bullet"; "Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred"; and "Ride scared." The complaint also stated that Dronso made numerous calls to his wife's parents' home, and when the phone was answered, he coughed, whistled, sang or made unintelligible statements. Dronso's wife and her relatives stated that they were annoyed by the calls.

On May 18, 1978, Dronso made a motion to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. A hearing on the motion was held in the county court for Milwaukee county on May 22, 1978. Following the hearing and consideration of briefs, the county court, the Hon. Frederick P. Kessler, presiding, held that sec. 947.01(2), Stats., is unconstitutionally overbroad in [90 Wis.2d 113] violation of the first and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution and art. I, §§ 1 and 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This order was filed June 14, 1978. The state appealed that order to the circuit court.

On appeal to the circuit court for Milwaukee county, the county court's judgment was affirmed. The circuit court, the Hon. Victor Manian, presiding, held that Dronso had standing to challenge the constitutionality of sec. 947.01(2), Stats., and that that statute is unconstitutional on its face as it is vague and overbroad in violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution and art. I, § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The circuit court's memorandum decision was appealed to this court.

The issue framed by the state is thus: Is sec. 947.01(2), Stats., which proscribes making a telephone call with intent to annoy another, whether or not conversation ensues, unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?

STANDING

Generally, litigants to whom a statute constitutionally applies, cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute, if the same, by hypothesis, could be applied to others unconstitutionally. 2 One exception to this general rule is where the issue before the court is the first amendment free speech rights. 3 Here courts permit defendants, such as Dronso, to attack overly broad statutes with no requirement that the challenger demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. 4 Courts entertain such [90 Wis.2d 114] challenges because, where a statute is overbroad, it will chill legitimate activities 5 and cause others to refrain from a legitimate exercise of free speech. 6

Overbreadth claims have been entertained by courts in cases involving statutes

Page 713

seeking to regulate only spoken words 7 or to regulate the time, place and manner of expressive or communicative conduct. 8 Courts, in looking to overbreadth, must proceed with caution and restraint as invalidation may result in unnecessary interference with a state regulatory program. In accommodating the competing interests of interference with legitimate state regulatory power and first amendment free speech rights, courts must note that: (1) a state statute should not be deemed facially invalid for overbreadth unless it is not readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts, 9 and (2) its deterrent effect on legitimate expression must be both real and substantial. 10 The state concedes that Dronso has standing to challenge sec. 947.01(2), Stats., on grounds of overbreadth for a violation of first amendment free speech rights, and further that the statute is overbroad on its face as it regulates free speech. The respondent agrees and states, quite naturally, that these concessions and the case as the statute is unconstitutional.
NARROWING CONSTRUCTION

Dronso's first amendment challenge to overbreadth against sec. 947.01(2), Stats., falls within the exception [90 Wis.2d 115] to the general rule. Courts must entertain his challenge as it involves first amendment free speech rights....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • State v. Thorne, No. 16465
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 7 Agosto 1985
    ...City of Everett v. Moore, 37 Wash.App. 862, 683 P.2d 617, 618-20 (1984) ("alarms or seriously annoys" overbroad); State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 110, 114-16, 279 N.W.2d 710, 713-14 (1979) ("intent to annoy" overbroad). The wording of each of these statutes, however, is distinguishable from W.Va......
  • Ex parte Thompson, No. PD–1371–13.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 17 Septiembre 2014
    ...may be dictated by the circumstances might also raise the question of whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.89 State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 110, 115–16, 279 N.W.2d 710, 713 (Wis.Ct.App.1979) (“Here the state would have this court uphold the constitutionality of [the statute] by inte......
  • Donley v. City of Mountain Brook, 6 Div. 742
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 1982
    ...Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977); State v. Blair, 287 Or. 519, 601 P.2d 766 (1979) and State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 149, 279 N.W.2d 710 (1979). We find the statutes under attack in these cases to be distinguishable from § 13A-11-8(b)(1)(b). It is helpful to distinguish each o......
  • State v. Douglas D., No. 99-1767-FT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 16 Mayo 2001
    ...861 (1991) (striking down city ordinance, which prohibited hindering or preventing police from discharging duties); State v. Dronso, 90 Wis. 2d 110, 279 N.W.2d 710 (Ct. App. 1979) (striking down statute that prohibited intentionally annoying phone 5. Cf. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • State v. Thorne, No. 16465
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 7 Agosto 1985
    ...City of Everett v. Moore, 37 Wash.App. 862, 683 P.2d 617, 618-20 (1984) ("alarms or seriously annoys" overbroad); State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 110, 114-16, 279 N.W.2d 710, 713-14 (1979) ("intent to annoy" overbroad). The wording of each of these statutes, however, is distinguishable from W.Va......
  • Ex parte Thompson, No. PD–1371–13.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 17 Septiembre 2014
    ...may be dictated by the circumstances might also raise the question of whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.89 State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 110, 115–16, 279 N.W.2d 710, 713 (Wis.Ct.App.1979) (“Here the state would have this court uphold the constitutionality of [the statute] by inte......
  • Donley v. City of Mountain Brook, 6 Div. 742
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 1982
    ...Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977); State v. Blair, 287 Or. 519, 601 P.2d 766 (1979) and State v. Dronso, 90 Wis.2d 149, 279 N.W.2d 710 (1979). We find the statutes under attack in these cases to be distinguishable from § 13A-11-8(b)(1)(b). It is helpful to distinguish each o......
  • State v. Douglas D., No. 99-1767-FT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 16 Mayo 2001
    ...861 (1991) (striking down city ordinance, which prohibited hindering or preventing police from discharging duties); State v. Dronso, 90 Wis. 2d 110, 279 N.W.2d 710 (Ct. App. 1979) (striking down statute that prohibited intentionally annoying phone 5. Cf. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT