The North Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Zachary Vetter for disorderly conduct, stemming from an incident at his stepchild’s elementary school. Vetter argued that his actions were constitutionally protected and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court disagreed, finding no reversible error in the lower court’s decision.
Background of the Case
[¶2] The case began on November 4, 2024, when Vetter visited his stepchild’s school to discuss the child’s bus suspension with the principal. The principal reported Vetter’s behavior during and after the conversation to law enforcement. On November 26, 2024, Vetter was charged with disorderly conduct under North Dakota law.
[¶3] At a bench trial (a trial before a judge, not a jury) in April 2025, the principal, a school counselor, and a paraprofessional testified. The principal stated Vetter was visibly upset and raised his voice during their conversation, causing her alarm.
[¶4] The school counselor testified that she saw Vetter push a garbage can, slam a door, and yell obscenities while in the presence of students. She said she was alarmed, especially for the children. The paraprofessional testified to seeing Vetter yelling obscenities and making gestures with his middle finger toward the building before speeding away in his car. All three witnesses testified that Vetter’s actions caused them alarm.
[¶5] The district court, after reviewing the evidence, found that Vetter’s actions—using obscene language, pushing the garbage can, and speeding away in the parking lot in front of students—constituted disorderly conduct. The court determined that Vetter’s behavior was tumultuous and that the individuals present were reasonably alarmed.
Vetter’s Arguments and the Court’s Response
[¶6] Vetter appealed the conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed he was exercising his constitutional right to direct his child’s education and advocate for his child’s welfare.
[¶7] North Dakota law states that if someone claims to have been engaged in constitutionally protected activity, the court must determine the validity of that claim and exclude evidence of the activity if it’s found to be protected.
[¶8] The Supreme Court noted that whether an activity is constitutionally protected is a question of law. They also emphasized that they must independently examine the record to ensure the judgment doesn’t infringe on free expression.
[¶9] However, the court pointed out that Vetter did not raise any constitutional claims in the district court. He didn’t specifically argue that his actions were constitutionally protected during the initial trial.
[¶10] Because Vetter didn’t raise these issues in the lower court, the Supreme Court decided not to address his constitutional arguments, as there was no “obvious error.”
Sufficiency of the Evidence
[¶11] Vetter also argued that the evidence presented at trial wasn’t enough to convict him. He claimed the state failed to prove the required mental state (intent) and that his behavior was not tumultuous.
[¶12] The Supreme Court stated that when reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, they view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. They will only reverse a conviction if no rational person could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[¶13] The court clarified that the law doesn’t require the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person; it only requires “reckless disregard” for the fact that others are alarmed by the behavior. The court also noted that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove criminal intent.
[¶14] The court found that Vetter’s actions, and their effect on those present, provided enough evidence to show that he acted with reckless disregard for others’ alarm.
[¶15] The court also addressed the meaning of “tumultuous” behavior. They cited dictionary definitions, stating that it can mean noisy, characterized by commotion, or marked by emotional agitation. The court concluded that Vetter’s actions, taken as a whole, met the definition of tumultuous behavior.
[¶16] Ultimately, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Vetter’s conviction for disorderly conduct.