Case ID: ala_38/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "R. W. WALKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KINNEY vs. THE STATE.
    [INDICTMENT FOR DISTURBANCE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.]
    ¡L ■ What constitutes offense. — To constitute an interruption or disturbance of “an assemblage of people met for religious worship,” (Code, § 3257,) it is not necessary that the interruption or disturbance should be made during the progress of the religious services-: if made aftor the conclusion-of the services and the dismissal of the congregation, but while a portion of the people still remain in the house, and before a reasonable time has elapsed for their dispersion, the offense is complete.
    • From the Circuit Court of Winston.
    "Tried before the Hon, Wm. S. Mudd.
    
      'The indictment in this case charged, that the prisonér ■“'willfully interrupted or disturbed an assemblage-of people met for religióús -worship, by noise, profáne discourse, or rude or indecent behavior, at ornear the placeM-of worship.” “On the trial,” as the bill of' exceptions states, “the prosecution adduced testimony-tending to-show that, within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, and in said county of Winston, the defendant willfully interrupted and disturbed an i-assemblage of -people -met for religious worship, by using-,profane-language, cursing and swearing, and by loud noiseiand rude behavior, at or near the place of worship. The ¿defendant proved, that, at the time of said interruption and 'disturbance as aforesaid, the religions services had been', concluded, the preacher had dismissed the congregation,.-and the people were about.to disperse; a small portion of them haying gone into the -yard, while the remainder were still in the house where'.the religious services were held. On this evidence,'¡-the 'defendant asked, the .court to instruct the jury, that, if the'y believed Itlie evidence, they must find the defendant not guilty; which charge the court refused to give, and.the-defendant excepted to its refusal.”
    E. W. Parker, for the prisoner.
    M. A. Baldwin, Attorney-General, contra.
    
   R. W. WALKER, J.

Section 3257 of the Code' ¿riácts, that “any person, who willfully interrupts or disturbs any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any other act at or near the place of worship,‘must, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty, or;moi’e than two hundred dollars, and may be imprisoned not ,more!..tban six months,”

In Tennessee, the statute on this -subject jjroitided, that “if any person shall interrupt a'congregation assembled for the purpose of worshipping -.the Deity, such person shall be dealt with as a rioter afocommon law.*’ On the trial of an indictment founded on the .act just cited, it was proved that, after the services were over, and the congregation had been dismissed, and begun to leave, some being still in the church, some in the church-yard, and others left for-home, the defendants, with others, excited and disturbed tie congregation, ,by cursing, swearing, fighting, &c., there then being present a good many ladies and gentlemen. Upon these facts, the defendants asked the court to charge, that if the worship had closed, and the congregation had been dismissed, and bad begun, to disperse, part having left the ground at .the time- the disturbance occurred, then the defendants could not be convicted. This the court refused, but charged the jury, that if the worship had ceased, . and, the congregation bad been dismissed, then, unless-a reasonable time «bad elapsed for the dispersion of the. congregation .after-,such dismission, the defendants would be guilty, if they «did acts- calculated to disturb those on the ground. . On appeal to the supreme court, it was decided,-.that "there was hoc error in the rulings of the circuit: judge; the-court holding, that the act not only protects .from disturbance a congregation while actually engaged in worship, but extends its protection also to all co.ngregations.which bad assembled for the purpose of worshipping; and that this protection continues, from the time the congregation-so assembles, until it disperses and ceases to be a congregation. — Williams v. The State, 3 Sneed, 313.

This decision, which we readily adopt as a correct construction of our own statute, is precisely in point in the present case, and shows that the court did not err in refusing the charge asked by the defendant.

The language of the Virginia act on the same subject is: “If any person shall, on purpose, maliciously, or contemptuously, disquiet or distui’b any congregation assembled in any church, meeting-house, or other place of religious worship,” &c. And it has been held in that State, that the statute is applicable, not only to disturbances made while the religious services are progressing, but also to disturbances made while the congregation is assembled for Worship, though it Re at might, oo -a Methodist 'campground, after the services are over for the day, and the worshippers are retired to rest. — Commonwealth v. Jones, 3 Grattan, 264.

Judgment affirmed. ■

Stoke, J., not sitting.