Blocking caller ID did not make threatening call “anonymous.”

State v. Wyrocki, 2012 VT 7 (Burgess, J.)

Defendant appeals her conviction for disturbing the peace by telephone in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1027(a)(iii). The State charged defendant with making repeated and anonymous terrifying, intimidating, threatening, harassing, or annoying telephone calls. Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly found that the calls were “anonymous” as required by § 1027. The court concluded that defendant’s calls were anonymous as required by § 1027 because she did not identify herself and “called from a phone that prevented Ms. Emilo from seeing her phone number.” Defendant contends that no call is anonymous if the person receiving the call identifies the caller and the calls were not anonymous because the recipient immediately recognized her as the caller. We agree that defendant’s calls were not anonymous within the meaning of the statute and therefore reverse.

The meaning of “anonymous” under § 1027 is one of first impression. The State argues that a call is “anonymous” under §1027 when “a defendant [takes] steps to conceal his or her identity.” Enacted in 1967, § 1027 became law well before caller ID became commonplace. The absence, or even masking of caller ID, therefore, is of no moment to our reading of § 1027. The invention of caller ID did not turn what was no violation of the statute in 1967 into a crime today.

The real issue whether the trial court’s focus on anonymity from the caller’s viewpoint, and not the listener’s, comports with the meaning of the Legislature. We conclude a call cannot be anonymous when its author is known to the listener. It is reasonable that the Legislature would criminalize terroristic, intimidating, threatening, harassing, or annoying telephone calls from unknown, rather than known actors, since such messages can reasonably be viewed as more vexing, disturbing, or sinister when communicated anonymously. Because defendant’s identity was not unknown, her telephonic communication was not anonymous, and § 1027 does not criminalize the conduct alleged in this case.