Petitioner: Matthew Charles Dempsey v. Respondent: the People of the State of Colorado

Summary

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the disrupting lawful assembly statute, § 18-9-108, was constitutionally applied to a protester at an open-air election campaign rally because its express elements — intent to disrupt and significant obstruction or interference — target conduct rather than the content of speech, and that the trial court properly refused instructions treating protected speech as an absolute affirmative defense. Nevertheless, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dempsey's bullhorn use or confrontation with the gymnasts significantly disrupted the rally, so that conviction was reversed. The court affirmed the obstructing a peace officer conviction, reasoning that the officers had an articulable suspicion justifying detention for a summons and that Dempsey's cumulative refusals to cooperate constituted knowing obstruction, which does not require physical contact. Justice Bender concurred in the judgment and in the insufficiency holding but dissented as to part II.A.2, contending the statute cannot be constitutionally applied unless juries are instructed on all of Kay's elements, including the customs of the assembly.