Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed Brian Albarelli's disorderly conduct conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish threatening behavior under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(1). The court adopted an objective standard for determining whether conduct is threatening and concluded that defendant's angry, loud, political speech, without threats or threatening physical conduct, did not convey an intent to harm another person. The court therefore ordered that defendant be acquitted and did not reach his other constitutional and counsel-waiver claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a timely post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal preserved defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant engaged in threatening behavior under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(1).
- What objective standard governs whether conduct constitutes threatening behavior when the alleged conduct includes speech.
Holdings
- A timely post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal preserves a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, even when the motion frames the argument in constitutional terms, so long as the substance of the argument contests whether the evidence supports conviction.
- For purposes of the disorderly conduct statute, threatening behavior is behavior that communicates an intention to do harm to another person.
- Whether conduct constitutes threatening behavior must be judged objectively, from the perspective of how a reasonable person would view the defendant's behavior, rather than by the subjective reaction of particular witnesses.
- The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for disorderly conduct based on threatening behavior because defendant's angry, loud, persistent, and political speech, without an explicit or implied threat or significant threatening physical conduct, did not communicate an intent to harm another person.
Key quotations
“Thus, the standard must be objective and turn on how a reasonable person would view defendant's behavior.” (at 135)
“His speech may have been "adamant," "angry," and "inappropriate," but such speech, without more, cannot be considered a threat to harm another person.” (at 139)
“We conclude that the trial court should have granted the motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence did not fairly and reasonably support the charge that defendant engaged in threatening behavior.” (at 139)
Factual background
Brian Albarelli confronted volunteers at a Burlington voter-registration table promoting Barack Obama's presidential campaign. He became angry and agitated, loudly expressed political views, accused Obama of being a terrorist, persisted after being asked to leave, and at one point approached within two or three feet of a witness. The witnesses felt threatened or afraid, but neither identified an explicit threat, physical assault, attempt to touch them, or other conduct indicating an intent to harm.
Procedural history
Defendant was charged in Chittenden District Court under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(1), represented himself at trial, and was convicted by a jury and sentenced to four to five days on a work crew. After obtaining counsel, he moved for dismissal and judgment of acquittal; the trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court held that the timely post-verdict motion preserved the sufficiency challenge, concluded that the evidence did not establish threatening behavior, reversed the denial of acquittal, and acquitted defendant.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered; the court reversed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal and acquitted defendant.