State v. Lantis, 447 P.3d 875

Aaron Lantis sent sexually suggestive photos of his ex-girlfriend (H.H.) to her employer and board, apparently to try to get her fired. H.H. testified she felt humiliated and feared loss of her job.
Lantis was charged with misdemeanor disturbing the peace under I.C. § 18-6409 for "offensive conduct" (sending the email/pictures).
At trial the magistrate denied motions for judgment of acquittal; a jury convicted Lantis.
On appeal to the district court (intermediate appellate review) the conviction was vacated: the court held the statute did not cover transmission of offensive electronic communications that disturb a person’s internal peace.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the historic statutory meaning targets public/external disturbances to the peace, not private/internal mental distress caused by sending offensive material to third parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sending sexually suggestive photos to a third party to embarrass someone falls within I.C. § 18-6409 (disturbing the peace)	The statute is broad and, read disjunctively, criminalizes maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace of a person by offensive conduct (so Lantis’s conduct qualifies)	The statute targets public/external disturbances (loud/noisy/tumultuous or public traducing) and does not reach private/internal emotional distress caused by communications to third parties	Held for defendant: statute does not cover transmissions that merely disturb a person’s internal/mental peace; conviction vacated
Whether the Court should address vagueness/overbreadth of § 18-6409	State asked reversal to avoid leaving statute narrowed	Lantis argued constitutional defects if statute were read to reach his conduct	Court did not reach vagueness/overbreadth because it resolved the case on statutory construction (no need to decide constitutionality)

In re Estate of Peterson, 157 Idaho 827 (Idaho 2014) (standard for direct review of district court acting in appellate capacity)
State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345 (Idaho 2013) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Alcohol Beverage Control v. Boyd, 148 Idaho 944 (Idaho 2010) (constitutionality of a statute is reviewed de novo)
City of Idaho Falls v. H-K Contractors, Inc., 163 Idaho 579 (Idaho 2018) (statutes in pari materia construed together; consider placement/context)
State v. Neal, 159 Idaho 439 (Idaho 2015) (statute placement relevant to legislative intent)
State v. Cota-Medina, 163 Idaho 593 (Idaho 2018) (construction of disjunctive language)
Friends of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley Cnty., 137 Idaho 192 (Idaho 2001) (statutes construed to give effect to all provisions)
People v. Harris, 885 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 2016) (use of corpus linguistics to determine ordinary meaning)
State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015) (advocacy for corpus linguistics as interpretive tool)