Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct.

Docket Number84353-COA
Decision Date22 February 2024
CitationWillson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 547 P.3d 122 (Nev. App. 2024)
PartiesLina Marie WILLSON, Petitioner, v. The FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CARSON CITY; and the Honorable James E. Wilson, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
CourtNevada Court of Appeals

West Codenotes

Limited on Constitutional Grounds

NRS 197.190

Original petition for a writ of certiorari challenging an order of the district court denying an appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a bench trial, of obstructing a public officer.

Charles H. Odgers, Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City; Jason Woodbury, District Attorney, and Peter W. Smith and Sarah E. White, Deputy District Attorneys, Carson City, for Real Party in Interest.

BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, GIBBONS, C.J., and BULLA and WESTBROOK, JJ.

CORRECTED OPINION1

PER CURIAM:

In this opinion, we consider constitutional challenges to NRS 197.190, which provides that a person may not "willfully hinder, delay or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of official powers or duties."PetitionerLina Marie Willson was charged and convicted under NRS 197.190 after yelling from her front yard at several police officers, who were attending to a separate, potentially lifethreatening matter involving a juvenile on the street near Willson’s house.After the district court affirmed her misdemeanor conviction, Willson petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that NRS 197.190 is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.We conclude that (1)NRS 197.190 applies only to physical conduct or fighting words that are specifically intended to hinder, delay, or obstruct a public officer and, therefore, (2)NRS 197.190, as construed by this court, is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, either on its face or as applied to Willson.

Although we hold that Willson’s as-applied claims fail, we recognize that Willson’s claims implicate the sufficiency of the evidence in light of our interpretation of NRS 197.190.Since the district court did not have the benefit of our interpretation of NRS 197.190 as applying only to physical conduct and fighting words, it did not consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support Willson’s conviction.Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of certiorari upholding NRS 197.190’s constitutionality and instructing the district court to reconsider Willsons direct appeal for the sole purpose of addressing whether, under this court’s interpretation of NRS 197.190, sufficient evidence supported Willson’s conviction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 25, 2021, the Carson City Sheriff’s Office responded to a call indicating a juvenile was contemplating suicide.Sergeant Mike Cullen was the first officer to arrive and saw the juvenile walking down a Residential road with a knife in his hands.Sergeant Cullen followed the juvenile in his car and attempted to communicate with him.At some point, the juvenile stopped in the street, and Sergeant Cullen got out of his car and continued to communicate with the juvenile from a distance.The juvenile pressed the knife into his body a couple of times and stated he wanted to kill himself.In accord with his training, Sergeant Cullen attempted to build rapport with the juvenile to prevent the juvenile from committing suicide.

Shortly thereafter, more officers arrived on the scene.One officer, Deputy Nicholas Simpson, maintained a position with a beanbag shotgun while the other officers attempted to deescalate and control the scene.Deputy Simpson was to use the beanbag shotgun if the public or the officers became at risk.Approximately 15 minutes after the officers arrived on scene, the juvenile dropped the knife.Sergeant Cullen believed the situation was unstable up until that moment.

At some point during these 15 minutes, while the officers were interacting with the juvenile, Willson, who lived next door to where the incident was taking place, started yelling at the officers and the juvenile from the middle of her front lawn.Willson continued to yell at the officers even though two deputies had asked her to stop yelling several times.2The officers generally could not recall what Willson was yelling, although Sergeant Cullen heard Willson yell at some point that "she was a witness of some sort."

The officers testified that Willson did not leave her yard, did not threaten them with violence, and did not throw anything at them.Nevertheless, the officers testified that Willson’s yelling was loud and disruptive and delayed their attempts to get the juvenile to drop the knife because it interfered with their ability to build rapport and interact with the juvenile.Deputy Simpson also testified that he had to put down the beanbag shotgun to address Willson because of her yelling, which put the officers at risk.Eventually, Willson’s behavior "stopped enough" to where the officers were able to get the juvenile over to the curb, and the juvenile dropped the knife.

Thereafter, the State charged Willson with obstructing a public officer in violation of NRS 197.190, and Willson was convicted after a bench trial in Carson City Justice Court.Willson appealed her conviction to the district court, arguing that NRS 197.190 was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague both on its face and as applied to her.The district court denied the appeal, holding NRS 197.190 was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague because the statute required both due notice and the specific intent to obstruct a public officer.3Wilson then filed this petition for a writ of certiorari.

ANALYSIS

[1, 2] In this petition, Willson challenges the constitutionality of NRS 197.190.This court is authorized to review a petition for a writ of certiorari in cases where a district court has passed upon the constitutionality of a statute on appeal from justice court.SeeNev. Const. art. 6, § 4(1);NRS 34.020(3)."The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo."Silvar v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,122 Nev. 289, 292, 129 P.3d 682, 684(2006)."Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that a statute is unconstitutional."Id.

[3–5] Willson argues NRS 197.190 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, both on its face and as applied to her."The overbreadth doctrine permits the facial invalidation of laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when ‘judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ "Ford v. State,127 Nev. 608, 612, 262 P.3d 1123, 1125(2011)(quotingChicago v. Morales,527 U.S. 41, 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67(1999)).The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from abridging an individual’s freedom of speech.4U.S. Const amend. I;Busefink v. State,128 Nev. 525, 529, 286 P.3d 599, 602(2012)."The vagueness doctrine holds that [a] conviction fails to comport with due process if the statute under which it is obtained fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.’ "Ford,127 Nev. at 612, 262 P.3d at 1125(alteration in original)(quotingUnited States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650(2008)).

[6] To determine whether NRS 197.190 is overbroad or vague, we must first interpret NRS 197.190 to determine what the statute prohibits.Seeid. at 612, 262 P.3d at 1126("The first step in both overbreadth and vagueness analysis is to construe the challenged statute.");see alsoUnited States v. Hansen,599 U.S. 762, 770, 143 S.Ct. 1932, 216 L.Ed.2d 692(2023)("To judge whether a statute is overbroad, we must first determine what it covers").After interpreting NRS 197.190, we determine whether NRS 197.190, as construed by this court, is overbroad or vague, either on its face or as applied to Willson.

NRS 197.190 prohibits physical conduct or fighting words that are specifically intended to hinder, delay, or obstruct a public officer in the discharge of official powers or duties

NRS 197.190 was enacted as part of the Crimes and Punishments Act of 1911, re- printed inNev. Rev. Laws § 6805, at 1928(1912), and has not been amended by the Legislature or interpreted in a published decision by the Nevada appellate courts since its enactment.The statute reads as follows:

Every person who, after due notice, shall refuse or neglect to make or furnish any statement, report or information lawfully required of the person by any public officer, or who, in such statement, report or information shall make any willfully untrue, misleading or exaggerated statement, or who shall willfully hinder, delay or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of official powers or duties, shall, where no other provision of law applies, be guilty of a misdemeanor.

NRS 197.190.

[7–10]When interpreting a statute, this court’s "primary goal … is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent in enacting it."Ramos v. State,137 Nev. 721, 722, 499 P.3d 1178, 1180(2021)."[W]e first look to the statute’s plain language to determine its meaning, and we will enforce it as written if the language is clear and unambiguous."Id.In determining the plain meaning of a statute, we consider both "the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole."Reggio v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 139 Nev. —, 525 P.3d 350, 353(2023)(quotingK Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.,486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 100 L.Ed.2d 313(1988))."We will look beyond the statute’s language only if that language is ambiguous or its plain meaning was clearly not intended or would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result."Ramos,137 Nev. at 722, 499 P.3d at...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex