55 A.3d 1034
N.H.2012Background
- Defendant Samuel Biondolillo was convicted by bench trial in the 6th Circuit Court (Concord District Division) of disorderly conduct under RSA 644:2,11(e).
- The charged conduct involved the defendant interrupting a police investigation into a father and child at a McDonald’s and refusing to back away from the officer.
- The officer’s investigation related to determining whether the child could be cared for and involved an outstanding warrant for the child’s mother.
- The trial court found the defendant guilty of disorderly conduct but not obstructing government administration.
- The defendant appealed alleging First Amendment/free speech concerns, insufficient evidence, and plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional validity of RSA 644:2,11(e) | Biondolillo argues the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. | Biondolillo contends the statute and its application infringe free speech rights. | Statute facially and as applied is constitutional. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | State contends defendant refused a lawful order and interfered with the officer. | Defense argues no evidence of a lawful order or interference. | Evidence sufficient; lawful order to move; refusal supports conviction. |
| Interference with a criminal investigation under 11(d) | State asserts defendant’s course of conduct interfered with the investigation, making offense imminent. | Defendant contends there was no proven ongoing criminal investigation at the moment. | Rational trier of fact could find course of conduct interfered with investigation. |
| Plain error claim | Plain error due to vagueness of ‘lawful order’ | Challenging the plainness/vagueness of the statute. | No plain error; law not settled to contrary; plain error not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comley v. State, 130 N.H. 688 (1988) (upholds state disorderly conduct scope to regulate conduct interfering with government functions)
- Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972) (upholds similar disorderly conduct rationale; lawful order enforcement)
- Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (struck down ordinance criminalizing verbal interruptions of police; distinguishable facts)
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (time/place/manner restrictions may regulate expression without targeting content)
- State v. Wilmot, 163 N.H. 148 (2012) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in NH disorderly conduct case)