5 NICS App. 147, GUTHRIE v. MIC (November 1999)

IN THE METLAKATLA TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

METLAKATLA, ALASKA

Herb Guthrie, Appellant,

v.

Metlakatla Indian Community, Respondent.

No. 96-5 (November 2, 1999)

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals his January 18, 1996, conviction for disturbing the peace under Section 72 of the Code of Criminal Offenses. The Court of Appeals found that the record did not support the trial court’s conviction of the Appellant. The record did not show that the Respondent Tribe proved or attempted to prove that the Appellant’s barking dog, or that Appellant’s failure to stop his dog from barking, rose to that level of personal conduct amounting to disturbance of the peace. Further, it was not clear whether the language of a “any person” found in Section 72 of the Code of Criminal Offenses extended to the behavior of one’s dog. The court also found that the tribe did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant acted “with reckless disregard that his conduct [was] offensive.”

FULL TEXT

Before:            Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Douglas W. Luna, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.

Appearances:  Herb Guthrie, Appellant, pro se; Leroy Wilder, counsel for Respondent Metlakatla Indian Community, via teleconference.

THIS MATTER came before the Metlakatla Court of Appeals pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on January 24, 1996. Herb Guthrie appeals his January 18, 1996, conviction for disturbing the peace pursuant to §72 of the Code of Criminal Offenses.

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because he is a member of the Metlakatla Indian Community. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Metlakatla Indian Reservation, giving rise to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Ordinance 653, Section 1 (Code of Criminal Offenses, Ordinance Relating to Law and Order) and Article V of the Metlakatla Constitution.

5 NICS App. 147, GUTHRIE v. MIC (November 1999) p. 148

II. ISSUE ON APPEAL

The sole issue on appeal is whether a barking dog constitutes “disturbance of the peace” under the Metlakatla Code.

III. DISCUSSION

Between July and September of 1995, Mr. Guthrie’s neighbor complained about Appellant’s barking dog to the Metlakatla Police. On November 22, 1995, she requested that Mr. Guthrie be charged with disturbing the peace for failing to stop his dog from barking. Mr. Guthrie was cited with, and subsequently found guilty of, disturbing the peace pursuant to §72 of the Code of Criminal Offenses. That section, entitled “Disturbing the Peace,” provides:

Any person who disturbs the peace and privacy of another with reckless disregard that his conduct is offensive or makes unreasonably loud noise . . . shall be guilty of an offense . . . .

Upon review of the record, it is this Court’s opinion that the record does not support the trial court’s conviction of Mr. Guthrie on a charge of disturbing the peace. In a criminal case, a defendant’s guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The record does not show that Respondent, Metlakatla Indian Community proved, or attempted to prove, that Mr. Guthrie’s barking dog, or that his failure to stop his dog from barking, rises to that level of personal conduct amounting to disturbance of the peace. Respondent admits that while the language of the statute clearly prohibits “any person” from disturbing the peace of another, it is not clear whether this prohibition extends to the behavior of one’s dog. Further, Respondent did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guthrie acted “with reckless disregard that his conduct [was] offensive.”

IV. ORDER

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that this matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court for issuance of an order to dismiss all charges and penalties.