People v Craft

[*1] People v Craft 2009 NY Slip Op 50114(U) [22 Misc 3d 1113(A)] Decided on January 26, 2009 Just Ct Of Vil. Of Red Hook, Dutchess County Triebwasser, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 26, 2009
Just Ct of Vil. of Red Hook, Dutchess County

The People of the State of New York,

against

Gloria M. Craft, Defendant.



CR-153-08

Jonah Triebwasser, J.

Procedural History

A trial in this matter was held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008. Police Officer Michael Plass appeared on behalf of the People. Defendant was represented by attorney Ann M. Weaver. Defendant, through her counsel, submitted a one-page closing argument on December 31, 2008. The People submitted a written closing argument on January 12, 2009. Defendant requested a week to reply, but no such reply has been forthcoming, more than a week has elapsed and, therefore, the Court deems this matter to be fully submitted and issues this decision and order.

Facts of the Case[FN1]

On November 1, 2008, a few days before the most recent Presidential election, the partisans of each major political party were occupying opposite corners of Market Street and Broadway in the Village of Red Hook enthusiastically waving placards and distributing literature on behalf of their candidates.

Into this uniquely American scene strode the defendant. In tones reminiscent of Margaret Hamilton's iconic performance as Miss Gulch in the Wizard of Oz, defendant confronted, berated and belittled a diminutive nine year old boy who was holding a political sign with which defendant did not agree.

Seeing his son under verbal attack, the boy's father (later identified as William J. Mansfield) went to defendant and asked that she leave his son alone, saying that the boy had the right to hold the sign as an American. In response, defendant (in the boy's presence) snarled that "He doesn't look like an American either." [*2]

Mr. Mansfield then escorted his son several yards away from defendant. As soon as Mr. Mansfield turned his back and walked toward the street again to continue advocating for his particular candidate, defendant moved rapidly toward the nine year old boy demanding that the boy "throw that sign away, give me that sign."

Seeing this, Mr. Mansfield, as any father would and as any father should, rushed to the aid of his son. In doing so, his right forearm bumped defendant's left forearm, causing defendant to take three steps backwards. In doing so, defendant's derriere bumped into a small, lightweight plastic table, the size and configuration of a common portable household ironing board.

Cell phones were whipped out by both parties to call 911 to obtain the police. At the same time, another person at the rally asked the boy if he was all right and if defendant had touched him.

In response, defendant let loose a torrent of vulgarity that would make a longshoreman blush. Some of the bon mots spewing forth from defendant (again in the presence of the nine year old) were:[FN2]

"You lying f*cking a**holes."

"Go f*ck yourselves." (She said this twice.)

"You're an a**, like that son of yours."

Defendant then crossed Broadway and Market street to the corner opposite. At all times during the incident, defendant was vigorously ambulatory. At no time was defendant knocked to the ground.

The Police arrived and, upon interviewing the witnesses and viewing the video now in evidence, issued Defendant an appearance ticket and supporting documentation charging her with Disorderly Conduct in violation of section 240.20 of the New York State Penal Law.

The Statute

In relevant parts, section 240.20 of the New York State Penal Law states:

§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

. . .

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons;

. . . [*3]

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

Decision and Order of the Court

As mind-reading is a lost art, the Court must divine the intent of defendant from her actions. As the Court of Appeals said in People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901), "[t]here are cases in which the intent may be inferred from the nature of the act." This is just such a case.

Here, defendant's intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm was clear from her confrontational actions and the tone of her voice as she disrupted the lawful assembly of those campaigning for a particular candidate. There was no evidence that defendant had any lawful authority to disturb the lawful assembly was introduced at trial.

Defendant claims that she cannot be convicted of disorderly conduct because she did not disrupt a lawful assembly. She claims that the assembly in question became unlawful when she was "assaulted" (sic) by Mr. Mansfield. In support of this contention, defendant introduced into evidence five photographs depicting a female with a small abrasion on the left shoulder and a reddish splotch behind and below the left armpit about twice the length of the female's breast. Significantly, the face of the female in question is never shown, so we only have the defendant's testimony to prove that these are photos of her.

However, even if we accept that these are photos of defendant's body, at no time during the incident was any contact made with any parts of defendant's body other than her left forearm and her derriere, as described, supra. Therefore, the Court is at a loss to explain how the photographs are probative of an assault on the defendant's shoulder and side.

Even more significant are the medical records from the Northern Dutchess Hospital that were entered into evidence by the defendant. These records discuss the medical examination of defendant which took place approximately one-half hour after the incident. Defendant, according to the records, claimed to have been struck by a flagpole on the neck and knocked to the ground. Such assertions are directly contrary to what was depicted on the unedited, continuous video in evidence.

In addition, the medical report notes that, during this examination, there were "no visual abnormalities in the skin." This leads the Court to believe that the marks on the skin shown in the photographs were not present at the medical examination conducted in the hospital just after the events at Broadway and Market Street on November 1, 2008. [*4]

All of this indicates to the Court that no assault took place and that there was no intervening action by Mr. Mansfield that would have made the assembly at issue unlawful.

In addition, it is defendant's contention that her clearly abusive and obscene language was a natural result of the alleged "assault" (sic), and thereby excusable. This is directly contrary to the facts in evidence. Defendant did not start using the obscene language until the passerby asked the nine year old boy if he was all right and if defendant had touched him.



Defendant's counsel asked for, and was granted, two weeks to submit to the Court a memorandum of law which would the cite case law to support defendant's contention. No such memorandum of law was ever submitted, nor was any such case law ever brought to the attention of the Court.

Defendant by her actions and verbiage is clearly guilty of disorderly conduct. With intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, she used abusive or obscene language and, without lawful authority, she disturbed a lawful assembly.

Date of Sentencing

Defendant and her counsel are hereby directed to appear before this Court on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. for sentencing. The People are directed to supply the Court with the defendant's prior criminal record, if any, at that time.

This decision also constitutes the order of this Court.

Dated:January 26, 2009

Red Hook, New York

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________

JONAH TRIEBWASSER,

Justice, Village of Red Hook Footnotes

Footnote 1: The facts herein are gleaned from the sworn testimony of the various witnesses at trial, as well as the video in evidence of the entire incident which was taken by a professional documentary film maker who was on the scene on the date in question.

Footnote 2: In deference to the sensibilities of the reader, the Court adopts the style of depicting profanities that is accepted practice in many family publications.