Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed Jennifer A. Wyrocki’s conviction for disturbing the peace by telephone under 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a)(iii). The court held that the telephone calls were not “anonymous” within the meaning of the statute because the recipient immediately recognized the defendant’s voice, and therefore declined to reach the defendant’s First Amendment, overbreadth, and vagueness arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether telephone calls are anonymous under 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a)(iii) when the recipient cannot see the caller's number but recognizes the caller's identity or voice.
- Whether 13 V.S.A. § 1027 violates the First Amendment as applied to Wyrocki's conduct.
- Whether 13 V.S.A. § 1027 is unconstitutionally overbroad.
- Whether 13 V.S.A. § 1027 is unconstitutionally vague.
Holdings
- A telephone call is not anonymous within the meaning of § 1027 when the recipient knows the identity of the caller, even if the caller's telephone number is withheld or the caller does not identify herself.
Key quotations
“Under any definition, a call cannot be anonymous when its author is known to the listener.” (¶ 10)
“The invention of caller ID did not turn what was no violation of the statute in 1967 into a crime today.” (¶ 11)
“In contrast, defendant’s identity was not unknown, her telephonic communication was not anonymous, and § 1027 does not criminalize the conduct alleged in this case.” (¶ 12)
Factual background
Roxanne Emilo received two telephone calls in succession while at work. Although the caller's number appeared as withheld, Emilo immediately recognized Wyrocki's voice based on their longstanding personal relationship and testified that she was absolutely certain Wyrocki was the caller. During the calls, Wyrocki made profanity-laced insults and statements wishing that Emilo would die.
Procedural history
The State charged Wyrocki with making repeated and anonymous terrifying, intimidating, threatening, harassing, or annoying telephone calls. After a bench trial, the Superior Court, Addison Unit, Criminal Division, denied her motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted her. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed because the calls were not anonymous within the meaning of the statute and therefore did not constitute an offense under § 1027(a).