State v. Hammersley

• Decision Date: 08 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 24902.,24902.
• Citation: 10 P.3d 1285,134 Idaho 816
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dana L. HAMMERSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

10 P.3d 1285

134 Idaho 816

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dana L. HAMMERSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24902.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene, April 2000 Term.

September 8, 2000.

John M. Adams, Kootenai County Public Defender; J. Bradford Chapman, Deputy Public Defender, Coeur d' Alene, for appellant. J. Bradford Chapman argued.

Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Alison A. Stieglitz, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Alison A. Stieglitz, argued.

SILAK, Justice.

NATURE OF THE CASE

This appeal arises from the magistrate court's decision denying appellant Dana L. Hammersley's (Hammersley) motion to dismiss challenging the constitutionality of section 18-6409 of the Idaho Code.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural Background

On February 7, 1997, Hammersley drove to Lakeland Junior High to pick up her daughter, Cassandra, age 13. When Hammersley arrived, Cassandra was talking with her friend Nicole "Nikki" Goodwin (Goodwin). After Cassandra got into her mother's car, Hammersley yelled at Goodwin to "shut your fucking mouth, you bitch Nikki." In addition to Goodwin, two other youths, Lacy Johnson and Brandon March, age 13 and 14 respectively, were present during the incident. Goodwin filed a criminal complaint resulting in Hammersley being charged with disturbing the peace under I.C. § 18-6409. Hammersley filed a motion to dismiss, with the magistrate court, asserting violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I § 9 of the Idaho State Constitution.

The motion to dismiss was argued on the briefs, with the parties stipulating to the following facts:

1) On 05 February 1997

2) the defendant, Dana L. Hammersley

3) stated verbally and with a loud voice

4) "shut your fucking mouth, you bitch Nikki!"

5) in the presence of Nicole Goodwin, Brandon March, and Lacy Johnson

6) all of which are juveniles not yet eighteen (18) years of age.

The magistrate denied Hammersley's motion to dismiss. Hammersley agreed to a conditional plea under Idaho Criminal Rule 11, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss. Hammersley then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate's decision. Hammersley now appeals the district court ruling to this Court.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

The appellant presents the following issues on appeal:

1) Whether the magistrate erred in ruling that Hammersley's statement constituted "fighting words" and is therefore, not constitutionally protected.

2) Whether the magistrate erred in ruling that I.C. § 18-6409 is not vague or overbroad as applied.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When we review the decision of a magistrate following an intermediate appeal to the district court, we independently examine the proceedings in the magistrate division while giving due consideration, but not deference, to the district court's appellate decision. See State v. Salsbury, 129 Idaho 307, 308, 924 P.2d 208, 209 (1996)

; Ireland v. Ireland, 123 Idaho 955, 957-58, 855 P.2d 40, 42-43 (1993).

This Court reviews a motion to dismiss based on an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Pratt, 125 Idaho 546, 556, 873 P.2d 800, 810 (1993)

. However, when this Court considers a claim contesting the constitutionality of a statute it involves a question of law, therefore, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. See State v. Cobb, 132 Idaho 195, 197, 969 P.2d 244, 246 (1998). Further, we review the magistrate's ruling de novo because the parties had stipulated to the facts leaving only question of law to be decided. See id.

132 Idaho at 197,

969 P.2d at 246; State v. Hansen, 125 Idaho 927, 930, 877 P.2d 898, 901 (1994); Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley, 109 Idaho 424, 428, 708 P.2d 147, 151 (1985).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The Magistrate Court Did Not Err In Ruling Dana Hammersley's Statement Constituted "Fighting Words" And Is Therefore Not Constitutionally Protected.

Hammersley asserts that, as it has been applied to her, I.C. § 18-6409 violates her freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Idaho Constitution. In denying her motion to dismiss, the magistrate court ruled that Hammersley's speech was not constitutionally protected by either the United States or Idaho Constitution because her speech fell within the "fighting words" exception to free speech and was thereby subject to regulation. We agree.

Section 18-6409 of the Idaho Code provides in relevant part:

Disturbing the peace. — Every person who maliciously and willfully ... uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

I.C. § 18-6409 (emphasis in original).

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. CONST. amend. I.

Those protections of free speech afforded by the First Amendment are made applicable to state actions by operation of the Fourteen Amendment. This Court has previously held that Art. I, § 9 of the Idaho Constitution provides for protection of freedoms substantially similar to those of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See In re Contempt of Wright, 108 Idaho 418, 423, 700 P.2d 40, 45 (1985)

. Article I, section 9 of the Idaho Constitution provides:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

IDAHO CONST. art. I, § 9.

In most instances, there exists a strong presumption of the validity of a statute or ordinance. See Cobb, 132 Idaho at 197,

969 P.2d at 246. The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech or expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2542, 120 L.Ed.2d 305, 317 (1992). As a result, most content-based regulations on speech are presumptively invalid. See id. However, while these constitutional provisions seek to protect individuals from state regulation of speech, they have never been thought to give absolute protection to every individual to speak whenever or wherever he or she pleases, or to use any form of address in any circumstances that he or she chooses. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 19, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1785, 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 290 (1971). Rather, states are free to ban simple use of what have been termed "fighting words" without being required to demonstrate additional justifying circumstances. See id. at 20, 91 S.Ct. at 1785-1786, 29 L.Ed.2d at 291. These so-called "fighting words" have been described as "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to an ordinary citizen, are inherently likely to provoke violent reaction." Id. (citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)).

The rationale behind the "fighting words" exception is that certain words or phrases, when directed toward another, may be regulated consistent with the First Amendment because of their constitutionally proscribable content. See R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 383,

112 S.Ct. at 2543,

120 L.Ed.2d at 317. Therefore, the exclusion of "fighting words" from the scope of the First Amendment simply means that the unprotected features of the words are essentially a non-speech element of communication subject to state regulation because they do not constitute an essential part of any expression of ideas. See id. at 385, 112 S.Ct. at 2543,

120 L.Ed.2d at 319.

Here, it is difficult to conceive how Hammersley's statement to Goodwin contained an essential element of the expression of ideas, entitled to constitutional protection. Rather, the nature and circumstances surrounding Hammersley's statement appear to fall well within those areas of speech previously recognized as unprotected by the First Amendment. Hammersley's statement to Goodwin neither contained nor expressed any message of social or political importance. The comment was not made generally, but was directed toward a specific individual with the sole purpose of being derogatory and abusive. Such personal abuse cannot be reasonably interpreted as the communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution. See Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572,

62 S.Ct. at 769,

86 L.Ed. at 1035.

In addition to falling generally outside the scope of constitutional protections, Hammersley's statement fits within the well-recognized "fighting words" exception to free speech since, under the circumstances, it was likely to incite or provoke a reasonable person to a violent reaction. Hammersley asserts the statement is not within the "fighting words" exception because escalation to a violent encounter was physically impossible given the fact that Goodwin was on the sidewalk and Hammersley was in her car. However, the fact that Hammersley now asserts that Goodwin was not physically capable of retaliation does not make the statement any more or less protected. On the contrary, it is entirely possible that Goodwin could have been incited to retaliate under the circumstances. The physical characteristics of the encounter did not foreclose the possibility of Goodwin throwing a rock or other projectile, or resorting to reciprocal verbal assaults. As applied, I.C. § 18-6409 sought to proscribe just such conduct in preventing a breach of the peace.

Accordingly, we hold that the application of I.C. § 18-6409 to Hammersley did not violate her constitutional protections to freedom of speech.

B. The Magistrate Court Did Not Err In Determining That I.C. § 18-6409 Is Not Vague Or Overbroad As Applied To Hammersley.

Hammersley asserts that I.C. § 18-6409 is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to her and that...