IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTOPHER BROWN
Hall, Horne & Sullivan, L.L.P., by Patrick J. Mulligan, IV,
for juvenile appellant.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Donna D. Smith, for the State.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Respondent Christopher Brown was adjudicated delinquent on 8
August 2000 upon a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6),
prohibiting disorderly conduct involving schools, at the 8 August
2000 Session of New Hanover County District Court. Respondent was
ordered to be placed on probation for a period of 6 months,
complete 24 hours of community service, have no similar incidents
to occur at school, and to continue in counseling.
The evidence for the State showed that on 17 March 2000,
respondent was a student at Myrtle Grove Middle School. The
teacher of his class was Katie Carbone, a student teacher at the
time. On this day, Ms. Carbone was administering an algebra quiz.
According to Ms. Carbone, the class had been instructed that
they would get a zero on the quiz if they talked during the quiz.
Respondent was reprimanded “a time or two” for talking. Instead of
giving respondent a zero, however, Ms. Carbone took him to adifferent classroom to finish the test.
When the time to take the test had expired, Ms. Carbone went
to retrieve the respondent and his test. She found the respondent
talking to another student also taking the test outside the
classroom and became upset. Ms. Carbone reminded respondent that
she could give him a zero, to which he replied, “Well give me a
zero.”
Respondent headed back to the classroom and slammed the door
behind him. The slam was described as “really really loud right in
[Ms. Carbone's] face.” At this point Ms. Carbone called respondent
back into the hallway. She began to write a “referral slip” to
send respondent to the office. At this point respondent began
begging the teacher not to send him to the office. He was crying
and attempting to stay in front of her in an attempt to prevent her
from going to the office. His actions were described as “kind of
throwing a temper tantrum.” Respondent held Ms. Carbone's arm in
his attempt to block her. After being asked three or four times,
respondent released Ms. Carbone after she told him that, “if you
don't get your hands on [sic] me you are really gonna be in
trouble.” Respondent then ran to the office. Ms. Carbone arrived
shortly afterward. She finished her referral slip and reported to
her superior. She then returned to her class, which had been
unattended throughout the incident.
The student that respondent was speaking to in the hallway
testified that respondent was reminding her to omit a certain
problem on the quiz per Ms. Carbone's instructions when the teacherfound them in the hallway. She and another student testified about
respondent slamming the door as he entered the classroom and that
the teacher got a referral slip and called respondent back out into
the hallway. They described respondent's behavior as he and the
teacher proceeded to the office. Their description matched that of
Ms. Carbone's testimony in that respondent cried and protested
being taken to the office.
Respondent testified at the hearing. He admitted slamming the
door, although he said it was not his intent to slam the door or to
do so in the teacher's face. He admitted to crying and being upset
as he was being written up and taken to the office. Respondent
explained that he was upset because his stepfather may hold him
back a grade. Respondent's stepfather testified as to respondent's
punishment and current behavior.
At the time of the hearing, respondent was 13 years old.
Respondent made a motion to dismiss the charges which was denied at
the close of the State's evidence. The trial court found:
That there was sufficient evidence to prove
the juvenile did as set out in the petition.
That on or about the 17th day of March 2000,
the juvenile unlawfully and willfully did
intentionally cause a public disturbance at
Myrtle Grove Middle School, Wilmington, NC, by
engaging in conduct which disturbs the peace,
order or discipline at any public educational
institution. This conduct consisted of the
[respondent's] talking during a quiz, refusing
to follow instructions; slamming the door in
the teacher's face and tried to restrict her
from going to the office. This is in
violation of G.S. 14-288.4(a)(6).
(6) Disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the
teaching of students at any public or
private educational institution or
engages in conduct which disturbs the
peace, order or discipline at any public
or private educational institution or on
the grounds adjacent thereto.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6) (1999).
The definitive case on the meaning of the “disruptive conduct”
is State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147, 158 S.E.2d 37 (1967), cert.
denied, 390 U.S. 1028, 20 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1968) (construing N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-273 (1953) (repealed 1971)). In Wiggins, ourSupreme Court said,
[w]hen the words “interrupt” and
“disturb” are used in conjunction with the
word “school,” they mean to a person of
ordinary intelligence a substantial
interference with, disruption of and confusion
of the operation of the school in its program
of instruction and training of students there
enrolled.
Wiggins, 272 N.C. at 154, 158 S.E.2d at 42.
This Court has continued to follow the Wiggins case since the
enactment of the current disorderly conduct statute N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 14-288.4. In In re Grubb, 103 N.C. App. 452, 405 S.E.2d 797
(1991), this Court said, “The fact that the word “interrupt” does
not appear in the present statute does not change the plain meaning
of the language contained therein. The conduct in question must
substantially interfere with the operation of school.” Grubb, 103
N.C. at 454, 405 S.E.2d at 798.
Previous decisions by this Court and the Supreme Court shed
light on the level of interference required to sustain a conviction
of disorderly conduct in the school scenario. In Wiggins, students
picketed a high school. The students were protesting alleged
racial inequality. Testimony in that case showed that classes
stopped because students were leaving their seats and classrooms to
see the demonstration. A class that was being conducted outside on
the school grounds had to be canceled. The disorder in the entire
school created as a direct result of the picketing sustained the
convictions of the defendants of disorderly conduct. Wiggins, 272
N.C. at 150-52, 158 S.E.2d at 39-41. In State v. Midgett, 8 N.C. App. 230, 174 S.E.2d 124 (1970),
defendants took over the school office. In fact, they were so bold
as to tell the school's secretary that “they were going to
interrupt [the school] that day.” Midgett, 8 N.C. App. at 231, 174
S.E.2d at 126. Defendants barricaded themselves in the office,
overturned cabinets, and operated the school's bell system. Id.
The disruption of the school's proper functioning was so great that
it necessitated early dismissal. Id. at 233, 174 S.E.2d at 127.
This Court held that the evidence “amply” satisfied the statute and
affirmed the convictions. Id. at 234, 174 S.E.2d at 128.
On the other hand, this Court reversed a conviction (denial of
motion to dismiss) of disorderly conduct under N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 14-288.4(a)(6) in Grubb, 103 N.C. App. 452, 405 S.E.2d 797.
Respondent momentarily disrupted class when she was talking loud
during class. She had to be reprimanded several times before she
would cease the loud talking. The Grubb Court held that this
evidence alone was insufficient upon which to base a conviction,
and respondent's motion to dismiss should have been granted.
The Supreme Court also reversed a disorderly conduct
conviction for substantially interfering with school in In re
Eller, 331 N.C. 714, 417 S.E.2d 479 (1992). In that case, the
teacher saw one defendant swing something at another student. Upon
first inquiry, that defendant willingly gave the teacher a
carpenter's nail he had in his hand. On another occasion, that
same defendant was joined by another student in banging the
classroom's radiator while class was being conducted. They did soa couple of times, distracting the class of 15 each time. The
Supreme Court held that the evidence did not show substantial
interference within the meaning of Wiggins. Id. at 718, 417 S.E.2d
at 482.
The evidence in the case sub judice shows a student who talked
during a test, slammed a door, and begged a teacher in the hallway
that he not be sent to the office. It is probable that some
students were briefly distracted by the door slam and the sounds of
a student crying in the hallway. We also note that the class was
without its teacher while this occurred. The record does not
reveal how long the teacher was away, but it does not seem to have
lasted more than several minutes. We hold that this evidence is
insufficient to show a substantial interference with the operation
of the school.
This Court does not doubt that when students act as
respondents in this case, they are troublesome and a burden in the
classroom. These are the trials faced by teachers in today's
schools. But if we were to hold that the present actions are of
such gravity that they warrant a conviction of disorderly conduct,
every child that is sent to the office for momentary lapses in
behavior could be convicted under such precedent.
As the Eller Court stated,
while egregious behavior such as that
condemned in Wiggins and Midgett is not
required to violate N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4(a)(6),
more than that present in the case at bar is
necessary.
Further support for our view is found inthe location of N.C.G.S. § 14-288.4(a)(6)
within our statute books. The statute is
contained within Article 36A, which concerns
“Riots and Civil Disorders.” This article was
passed by our legislature in 1969, amid the
concern generated by the tumult of the
dramatic civil unrest gripping the nation and
this state in the late 1960's. To say that
the relatively modest disturbances caused by
respondents in the instant case do not rise to
this level of concern would appear self-
evident.
Eller, 331 N.C. at 719-20, 417 S.E.2d at 483.
Because we hold it was error to deny respondent's motion to
dismiss, the adjudication of respondent as a juvenile delinquent is
Reversed.
Judges GREENE and CAMPBELL concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***