State v. Teale., 139 Haw. 351

On May 1, 2012, Laulani Teale disrupted a May Day program at Kapiʻolani Park by wandering with signs, repeatedly blowing a conch shell, and attempting several times to approach and speak with the Mayor.
HPD officers intervened, asked her to step aside, surrounded her, and ultimately arrested her for disorderly conduct under HRS § 711-1101(1)(a) after she sat down and later walked toward the Bandstand; she was not violent and the conch shell was not seized.
The district court convicted Teale of disorderly conduct and sentenced her to probation, community service, and fees.
Teale appealed to the ICA arguing insufficient evidence that she engaged in fighting, threatening, violent, or “tumultuous” behavior; the ICA affirmed, relying on broad dictionary definitions of “tumultuous.”
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper legal definition of “tumultuous behavior” under HRS § 711-1101(1)(a) and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Teale’s conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper definition of “tumultuous behavior” under HRS § 711-1101(1)(a)	State: “tumultuous” includes disturbance, commotion, noisy or unruly conduct (dictionary definitions)	Teale: statute should be read narrowly; “tumultuous” must mean conduct more serious than mere annoyance	Court: “tumultuous behavior” means conduct marked by violent agitation or extreme outbursts — focus on defendant’s own extreme conduct rather than bystander reaction
Sufficiency of evidence that Teale engaged in tumultuous behavior	State: repeated attempts to approach Mayor, blowing conch, refusal to comply, and audience disturbance suffice	Teale: no violent agitation, threats, or extreme outbursts; crowd reaction alone cannot criminalize peaceful/annoying conduct	Court: Evidence insufficient — Teale’s conduct lacked violent agitation or extreme outbursts, so conviction reversed
Relevance of crowd reaction to disorderly conduct mens rea	State: public annoyance and clapping/cheering show inconvenience/alarm	Teale: bystander reaction cannot convert peaceful conduct into criminal conduct	Court: Crowd reaction may bear on mens rea (intent/recklessness) circumstantially but cannot alone satisfy actus reus for “tumultuous behavior”

State v. Aiwohi, 109 Hawaiʻi 115, 123 P.3d 1210 (2005) (Model Penal Code commentary is instructive when state statute derives from MPC)
State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (1977) (mere public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm insufficient for disorderly conduct)
State v. Faulkner, 64 Haw. 101, 637 P.2d 770 (1981) (bystander curiosity and congregation do not equate to physical inconvenience or alarm under disorderly conduct statute)
State v. Leung, 79 Hawaiʻi 538, 904 P.2d 552 (App. 1995) (arguments with police, without more, do not fall within the disorderly conduct statute)
State v. Lund, 475 A.2d 1055 (Vt. 1984) (defines “tumultuous behavior” as a “violent outburst”)
Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (tumultuous behavior may be defined as violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval; focuses on defendant’s own extreme conduct)