## Facts

- Rose Marie Jackowski participated in an anti-war demonstration at the intersection of Routes 7 and 9 in Bennington, Vermont.
- Protesters blocked vehicular traffic at the intersection for about fifteen minutes.
- Jackowski stood in the intersection praying and holding a sign with anti-war slogans and news clippings, including an image of a wounded Iraqi child.
- Police repeatedly ordered Jackowski to leave the intersection; she refused and was arrested with other demonstrators.
- The State charged Jackowski with disorderly conduct for obstructing vehicular traffic “with intent to cause public inconvenience and annoyance,” under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(5).
- At a one-day jury trial, Jackowski admitted blocking traffic but testified her purpose was to protest the Iraq War, not to cause public inconvenience or annoyance; intent was the only disputed element.
- The trial court allowed Jackowski to display the sign to the jury but excluded the physical sign from evidence and from the jury room.
- The court instructed the jury that intent could be shown either (a) by proving Jackowski acted with the “conscious object” of bothering, disturbing, irritating, or harassing others, or (b) by proving she was “practically certain” her conduct would cause public inconvenience or annoyance.
- The jury found Jackowski guilty.

## Issues

1. Whether it was error to instruct the jury that the charged “intent to cause public inconvenience and annoyance” could be proven by showing the defendant was “practically certain” her conduct would cause that result.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the protest sign from evidence when intent was the central disputed issue.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the “practically certain” instruction improperly allowed conviction based on a lesser mental state than the charge required.
- The instructional error was prejudicial because intent was the only contested element at trial.
- The court also held the protest sign was relevant evidence of Jackowski’s state of mind and should not have been excluded from evidence under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute and charging language require intent to cause a particular result, the jury may not be instructed in a way that permits conviction based on mere knowledge that the result is practically certain.
- A jury instruction that lowers the State’s burden on the only contested element is prejudicial and requires reversal.
- Evidence bearing directly on a defendant’s claimed purpose or motivation is relevant to intent and may be improperly excluded if it materially limits the jury’s ability to assess mens rea.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the disorderly conduct conviction because the jury was permitted to find the required intent based on “practically certain” consequences rather than purposeful aim, and because exclusion of the protest sign improperly restricted proof bearing on the sole disputed issue of intent.


State v. Jackowski, 181 Vt. 73, 915 A.2d 767 (Vt. 2006)