State v. Kling

¶1Filed 12/4/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72013 ND 223

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Kary Gene Kling, Defendant and Appellant

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20130103

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Divide County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Joshua B. Rustad, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Elizabeth L. Pendlay, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 289, Crosby, N.D. 58730-

¶300289, for plaintiff and appellee.

¶31

¶32Erin M. Conroy, P.O. Box 137, Bottineau, N.D. 58318, for defendant and appellant.

¶33State v. Kling

¶34No. 20130103

¶35

¶36Per Curiam.

¶37[¶1] Kary Kling appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of disorderly conduct.  On appeal, Kling argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and his conviction was based on speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  We conclude Kling’s speech was not constitutionally protected under the circumstances and there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.  We affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).  SeeIn re A.R., 2010 ND 84, ¶¶ 9, 12, 781 N.W.2d 644 (fighting words are not protected speech and conduct accompanying speech should be considered); State v. Bornhoeft, 2009 ND 138, ¶ 11, 770 N.W.2d 270 (a violation of the disorderly conduct statute does not depend only on the content of the speech, but on the behavior and circumstances).

¶38[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶39Dale V. Sandstrom

¶40Daniel J. Crothers

¶41Mary Muehlen Maring

¶42Carol Ronning Kapsner