From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bradshaw

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Judgment reversed
Jul 20, 1983
116 Ill. App. 3d 421 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)

Summary

holding that where defendant used vulgar language toward the manager of a bar, it did not amount to disorderly conduct

Summary of this case from People v. Cody L. (In re Cody L.)

Opinion

No. 4-83-0012

Opinion filed July 20, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan County; the Hon. Gordon D. Seator, Judge, presiding.

Daniel D. Yuhas and Lawrence Bapst, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Tim P. Olson, State's Attorney, of Jacksonville (Robert J. Biderman and Thomas W. Lacy, both of State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People.


On January 4, 1983, following a bench trial in the circuit court of Morgan County, defendant, Roy Bradshaw, was convicted of disorderly conduct (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 26-1(a)(1)) and sentenced to five days' imprisonment. On appeal he maintains his conviction should be reversed because his actions did not "provoke" a breach of the peace. We agree and reverse the defendant's conviction.

Section 26-1(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 26-1(a)(1)), under which defendant was charged, provides that one type of disorderly conduct occurs when one knowingly acts "in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace." In People v. Trester (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 553, 421 N.E.2d 959, this court determined that section 26-1(a)(1) indicates that the prohibited conduct must actually bring about a breach of the peace and not merely tend to do so.

Moreover, in People v. Douglas (1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 738, 742-43, 331 N.E.2d 359, 363, the court stated:

"Vulgar language, however distasteful or offensive to one's sensibilities, does not evolve into a crime because people standing nearby stop, look, and listen. The State's concern becomes dominant only when a breach of the peace is provoked by the language."

The record in this case does not indicate that the defendant's vulgar language provoked a breach of the peace.

Charles Aufdenkamp, the manager of a bar in Jacksonville, testified at trial that on October 8, 1982, after he had asked the defendant to leave the bar, the defendant "went out [the] front door * * * and * * * called [Aufdenkamp] all kinds of obscene names for ten to fifteen minutes duration." Steven Boulis, a bartender, testified that the defendant did not leave the bar until he (defendant) saw Boulis calling the police. A Jacksonville police officer, Steven Poole, testifying for the defense, stated that when he arrived the defendant was approximately one-half block from the tavern.

Unlike in People v. Davis (1980), 82 Ill.2d 534, 413 N.E.2d 413, cited by the State, defendant did not threaten anyone. No group gathered around defendant and Aufdenkamp in a threatening manner as in City of Chicago v. Morris (1970), 47 Ill.2d 226, 264 N.E.2d 1. That defendant's conduct was nothing more than annoying is indicated by the lack of evidence that anyone left the tavern as a result of defendant's conduct.

As stated in Trester, the general trend of the cases has been for courts to give a narrow construction to the offense of disorderly conduct. When the conduct of a patron of a private establishment is merely annoying customers and that patron refuses the demand of the proprietor to leave the establishment, the charge of criminal trespass to land is the proper charge to make. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 21-3.) The existence of that offense affords protection to both the proprietor and the patrons of such an establishment. In this case, because there is no evidence indicating that the defendant's actions provoked a breach of the peace, the defendant's conviction for disorderly conduct cannot stand.

For the reasons stated herein, we reverse.

Reversed.

WEBBER, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bradshaw

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Judgment reversed
Jul 20, 1983
116 Ill. App. 3d 421 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)

holding that where defendant used vulgar language toward the manager of a bar, it did not amount to disorderly conduct

Summary of this case from People v. Cody L. (In re Cody L.)

In Bradshaw, a bar patron called a bartender “all kinds of obscene names for ten to fifteen minutes” and didn't leave the bar until he saw the bartender calling the police.

Summary of this case from Dukes v. Freeport Health Network Mem'l Hosp.

In People v. Bradshaw, 116 Ill.App.3d 421, 422, 452 N.E.2d 141, 142 (1983), the testimony established the yelling that was insufficient to support a disorderly conduct conviction occurred outside of a bar, not through a bullhorn with a siren three feet from the intended targets.

Summary of this case from People v. Rolfe

In People v. Bradshaw (1983), 116 Ill. App.3d 421, the State's evidence showed only that the defendant left a tavern, stood outside, and called the manager a variety of obscene names for 10 or 15 minutes.

Summary of this case from People v. Albert

In People v. Bradshaw (1983), 116 Ill. App.3d 421, 452 N.E.2d 141, we indicated that the State may prove a breach of the peace by showing either that the defendant threatened another or that the defendant's actions had an effect on the surrounding crowd.

Summary of this case from In re D.W
Case details for

People v. Bradshaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROY BRADSHAW…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Judgment reversed

Date published: Jul 20, 1983

Citations

116 Ill. App. 3d 421 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)
452 N.E.2d 141

Citing Cases

People v. McLennon

DeCraene's response to defendant's conduct also illustrates that his conduct directly threatened the staff.…

People v. Steger

See id. ¶ 18.¶ 34 Defendant relies on People v. Bradshaw , 116 Ill. App. 3d 421, 72 Ill.Dec. 209, 452 N.E.2d…