State v. David Tracy, 130 A.3d 196

Defendant and his daughter's basketball coach exchanged words after she did not play his daughter; confrontation occurred in a brightly lit school parking lot.
Defendant increasingly used profanity, called the coach a 'bitch,' and verbally pressed for his daughter to be played; he also made a faux physical gesture and slammed the car door.
The coach testified the exchange lasted four to five minutes, with the confrontation in close proximity and escalating in intensity.
State charged defendant with two misdemeanors: simple assault by physical menace and disorderly conduct under abusive language; an alternate charge of disorderly conduct by threatening behavior was later added.
The trial court found defendant guilty of abusive-language disorderly conduct under § 1026(a)(3), basing the decision on a narrowed concept of 'fighting words' after Read, and acquitted the threats-based count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1026(a)(3) as narrowed is unconstitutional on its face or as applied	Tracy argues the provision chills protected speech and is overbroad	Tracy argues the abusive-language prong should be limited to fighting words and thus unconstitutional as applied	Conviction reversed; words not within the narrow fighting-words category
Whether the speech here qualifies as fighting words under Read and Vermont precedent	State contends words became fighting words in context	Tracy contends the words do not rise to fighting words in context	Speech not within the narrow fighting-words category; cannot sustain conviction

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (establishes fighting-words doctrine; not protected)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (public display of vulgar language not directed to hearer may not be fighting words)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (fighting-words analysis requires context; not all provocative speech is unprotected)
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972) (overbreadth of abusive-language statutes; requires context-specific limits)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content-based restrictions invalid when targeting viewpoint or class of speech)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (First Amendment speech protection extends beyond public concerns)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (highly provocative speech protected if not inciting imminent violence)
State v. Read, 165 Vt. 141 (1996) ( Vermont construes abusive-language to target fighting-words; requires imminent breach of peace)
State v. Colby, 2009 VT 28 (2009) (narrowing of disorderly-conduct provisions to avoid overbreadth)
State v. Allcock, 2004 VT 52 (2004) (fighting-words analysis applied to abusive-language conviction in context)