State v. Wooden
2013 Mo. LEXIS 3
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Between Feb 19–24, 2011, Wooden sent multiple emails to St. Louis area public officials, including an alderwoman, with text and audio attachments.
- The alderwoman received four emails and later sought a restraining order, fearing for her safety; police were contacted.
- Wooden was arrested Feb 24, 2011 and charged with three counts: harassment under § 565.090.1(2) (count I), harassment under § 565.090.1(5) (count II), and possession of marijuana (count III).
- Wooden argued § 565.090.1(2) was unconstitutional as applied to his protected First Amendment speech and that there was insufficient evidence for the statute’s final elements; he also argued § 565.090.1(5) was unconstitutionally overbroad per State v. Vaughn.
- A jury convicted Wooden on all counts; the trial court sentenced one day for each count, to be served concurrently; this Court exercises jurisdiction over a state statute challenge.
- The court holds § 565.090.1(2) constitutional as applied and there was sufficient evidence for the conviction; § 565.090.1(5) is reversed per Vaughn and manifest injustice would occur if left intact; the remainder of the judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 565.090.1(2) as applied | Wooden argues it violates First Amendment protections. | Wooden contends the statute punishes protected political speech. | Constitutional as applied to Wooden. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 565.090.1(2) conviction | There was insufficient evidence of 'coarse language' and reasonable fear. | The audio and emails show coarse language likely to offend and create fear. | Sufficient evidence supported the conviction. |
| Validity of § 565.090.1(5) conviction (count II) | Vaughn renders § 565.090.1(5) unconstitutional. | State concedes manifest injustice if count II remains. | Count II reversed due to Vaughn; manifest injustice if left intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (invalidated § 565.090.1(5) as applied to this context)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (unprotected speech includes fighting words capable of inciting breach of peace)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (distinguishes profanity as protected speech from unprotected conduct when used to disturb peace)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (speech alone not protected when it incites imminent harm or injury)
- Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) (speech that incites imminent breach of the peace is not protected)
- Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) (government may restrict certain speech attributes in public forums)
- Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991) (speech that impairs other protected rights may be curtailed)
- State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Koetting, 691 S.W.2d 328 (Mo.App. E.D. 1985) (coarse language directed to an average person is likely offensive)