Document: 407 U.S. 104 92 S.Ct. 1953 32 L.Ed.2d 584 Lewis COLTEN, Appellant,v.COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. No. 71—404. Argued April 17, 1972. Decided June 12, Syllabus $Appellant, arrested for disorderly conduct when he failed, notwithstanding several requests by an officer, to leave a congested roadside where friend in another car was being ticketed traffic offense, tried and convicted inferior court fined $10. Kentucky has two-tier system adjudicating certain criminal cases, under which person charged with misdemeanor may be first and, if dissatisfied the outcome, have trial do novo of general jurisdiction but must risk greater punishment convicted. Exercising his right de novo, appellant circuit court, $50. The state appellate affirmed, rejecting appellant's contention that statute is unconstitutional First Fourteenth Amendments contravened due process requirements North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 711, 89 2072, 23 656, violated Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. makes it offense intent cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, recklessly creating thereof, congregate others place refuse comply lawful police dispersal order. As construed Court Appeals, violation occurs only there no bona fide intention exercise constitutional interest advanced individual's insignificant comparison alarm caused action. Held: 1. not unconstitutionally applied, having been ample evidence action appellant, who had observe ticketing engage issuing officer conversation, interfering enforcement laws. Pp. 108—110. 2. impermissibly vague broad as 'citizens desire obey (it) will difficulty understanding it,' individuals thereunder merely expressing unpopular ideas. 110—111. 3. Kentucky's does violate Due Process Clause, imposes penalty on those seek after court. procedure involves completely fresh determination guilt innocence superior acted case before motive deal more strictly defendant than would any other. supra, distinguished. 112—119. 4. Clause prohibit enhanced sentence reconviction. at 719—720, 2077—2078. 119—120. 467 S.W.2d 374, affirmed. Alvin L. Goodman appellant. Robert W. Willmott, Jr., appellee, pro hac vice, special Court. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 This presents two unrelated questions. Appellant challenges conviction ground State's are repugnant Amendments. He also constitutionality received whereby run risk, convicted, receiving punishment. 2 Colten 15 20 other college students gathered Blue Grass Airport outside Lexington, Kentucky, show their support gubernatorial candidate demonstrate lack regard Mrs. Richard Nixon, then about Lexington from airport appearance city. When demonstration ended, got into automobiles formed procession six 10 cars along access road main highway. A policeman, observing one entourage carried expired Louisiana license plate, directed driver, Mendez, pull off road. complied. Colten, followed motorists procession, pulled highway, approached find out what matter. policeman explained Mendez bore plate summons issued. made some effort enter conversation summons. His theory extension time obtain new plates. In order avoid complete issuance summons, took patrol car. Meanwhile, left additional policemen, completed duties noticed scene, stopped lane abreast students' vehicles. At least responsibility directing traffic, although testimony differed need doing so. Testimony number policemen present, how many were standing roadway. captain asked four five occasions group disperse. times leave.1 trooper requests, remarking once: 'Now, this none your affair . get back please move clear road.' response these replied wished make transportation arrangement occupants car, understood towed away. Another three depart failed away violating statute, Ky.Rev.Stat. § 437.016 (Supp.1968). arresting testified Colten's say intended stay see might happen. disputed this. expressed willingness wanted arrangement. added feared violence part police.2 3 complaint warrant charging conduct, carries maximum months jail fine $500, addressed Quarterly Fayette County, tried, jurisdiction, 'appealed,' rules style recourse, Ky.Rule Crim.Proc. 12.02, Criminal Division Circuit By consent, Appeals Commonwealth, 374 (1971). It rejected claim imposed impermissible, 656 (1969). We noted probable jurisdiction. 404 1014, 672, 30 660 (1972). 4 * 437.016(1)(f) (Supp.1968), states: 5 '(1) guilty if, annoyance he: 6 '(f) Congregates persons refuses disperse ..' 7 interpreted following way: 8 'As reasonably construed, right. think plain meaning requiring proscribed done 'with thereof,' specified predominant intent. Predominance can determined either (1) fact appears existed (2) particular exercise.' S.W.2d, 377. 9 warranted finding, concluded, arrest, 'Colten undertaking constitutionally protected freedom.' Rather, 'appears purpose inconvenience annoyance. So applied here did chill stifle right.' Id., 378. Based our own examination record, we perceive justification setting aside conclusion engaged activity Amendment. insists seeking arrange citation disseminating information. But strained, near-frivolous little doubt refusing so not, without more, Nor believe trespassing disobeying regulation himself, could required on. ticket time. State legitimate enforcing its laws officers entitled enforce them free possible interference interruption bystanders, even claiming third-party transaction. Here apprehension strip, crowded automobiles, expose entourage, passing motorists, accident. cannot disagree finding below suited occasion. thus nothing manner applied. II 11 Neither convinced broad. '(t)he underlying principle man shall held criminally responsible understand proscribed.' United States Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); cf. Connally General Construction Co., 269 385, 391, 46 126, 127, 70 322 (1926). authorized causing alarm. Any stands highway investigating seeks attention should subdivision (f) fails root vagueness doctrine rough idea fairness. designed convert dilemma practical difficulties drawing statutes both enough take account variety human sufficiently specific provide fair warning kinds prohibited. agree said: 'We citizens .' 12 argues overbroad. relies Cox Louisiana, 379 536, 85 453, 13 471 (1965), breach-of-peace forbid agitation disquiet coupled ordered invalidated permitted mere expression views prompted disobeyed. stricken down same reason. however, crime committed right—in event, definition, infringes speech clearly outweighs collective sought asserted latter deemed insubstantial. hypothesized, example, symphony concert arose began lecturing audience leghorn chickens. confining reach avoided shortcomings case. Individuals annoying comes operation expression, judged light all relevant factors, 'minuscule' compared preventing place. case, immune Amendment neither vulnerable threatens others.3 III 14 like States,4 less serious cases. option crimes classified law misdemeanors5 so-called court,6 where, normal setting, choose plead guilty. If plea, Brown Hoblitzell, 307 739 (Ky.1957), long applies within statutory time.7 absolute. allege error proceeding. trial, scheme contemplates slate wiped clean. 12.06. Prosecution defense begin anew. token judge nor jury determines fixes way bound court's findings judgment. regarded exactly brought instance. review courts initially 23.032 However, plea ordinary ruling. recourse novo. While definition systems throughout common feature,8 differences kind available instance, whether known county, municipal, police, justice peace courts, otherwise referred to. Depending upon charged, such protection defendant's rights empowered try crimes. Others, safeguards provided Although six-man jury, Williams Florida, 399 78, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970), waived, jury,9 instances entitle accused tribunal. Cf. Duncan 391 145, 88 1444, 491 (1968). Some, including record proceedings10 judges trained positions experience schooling.11 16 Two justifications tribunals: first, day increasing burdens judiciaries, designed, State, speedier costly adjudications full range guarantees available; second, satisfied results unconditional unprejudiced proceedings outcome courts. considers infirm because anew limits bases attack (1969), issues raises produced division among considered them12 well conflict federal circuits.13 17 rightly reads Pearce forbid, successful appeal reconviction, imposition absent here. rule applicable difference between model system. Both, asserts, involve reconviction resentencing, 'appeal' both—even though reality novo—a fixed twice, potential increased 'appeal.' turn simply conviction, appeal, reversal, sentence. concerned defendants who, convictions set reconvicted offenses sentenced longer prison terms. term 25 years. Positing severe purposeful successfully appealed, concluded untoward sentences occurred sufficient frequency prophylactic ensure 'that vindictiveness against attacked (would) play receives 'deter collaterally U.S., 725, S.Ct., 2080. 18 Our view administering justice, lead us believe, presented briefs show, hazard penalized underlay holding inheres deterred second fear judicial vindictiveness. possibility vindictiveness, found exist inherent 19 note obvious: conducted final whose work different result appeal; over thought already correctly. work. unrestricted accord procedures, cases begun appear that, however understandably feel ought it, much likely reflect attitude stated 'the equipped error-free trials, insure recognition freedoms. They convenience, speedy inexpensive means disposition charges minor offenses.' (Ky.1971). reason, offered, assume insist filed originally put proof subject guarantees. often impose follows vindictive lenient penalty. represents innocence. record. far know, lower irrelevant proceedings. likelihood, informed hardly said 'enhanced' sentence.14 punishable $500. $10, basis concluding anything invoke processes accordance standards conclude, present understanding, announced appropriate context administers 21 suggested, sentencing strictures essential minimize unfairness endure less-than-adequate protections secure comporting persuaded, dealing disadvantages trials always available. Proceedings simple speedy, evidence, characteristically severe. Such offer opportunity learn posecution's chooses, reveal own. promptly cannot, face realistic threat help counsel, advice determining clean, accept options. Should prevail terminated, whereas choice beginning choices decision reject effect settlement judgment system, such, hazards warranting restraints called particularly since might, detriment diminish likelihood limit discretion retried 22 alternative prohibits urges stronger forces himself jeopardy price securing comports Constitution. That was, course, situation reversal error. ignores bypass pleading erasing immediately thereafter consequence follow tendering plea. 24 Affirmed. DOUGLAS, dissenting. aftermath visit President's wife happened. After her plane left, friends 'some ten cars' started leading officer's request, onto shoulder Appellant, followed, group. belonging blocking traffic. 27 people cars, walked around, talking mostly driver claimed advise getting rights, passengers Lexington. 'Colten's real aggravate, harass, annoy pleasure aggravation, harassment, inconvenience.' 376. 28 petitioner read follows:1 29 31 sustained inconvenience2 outweighed fell 'far level minimum social value.' citing obscenity redeeming value freedom yield contemporary morality seem public's utter Ibid. involved nonerotic, suggestion flavor pornographic. 33 quiet, boisterous, devoid 'fighting words.' 34 Moreover, moved action, involving overt acts. There fisticuffs, words. 35 express listener disseminate idea.' he, said, 'exercising peaceable assembly.' 36 speaking representative government, police. And government goes 'for redress grievances,' use almost forgotten phrase 'to annoyance.' Since Americans expected bow submissively authority speak awe reverence represent us? sovereigns, officials agents. word softly angrily. challenge annoy, docile quiet. indicated techniques illsuited mission on, diplomacy effective. sedative; disruptive. Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 4, 69 894, 896, 93 1131: 37 '(A) function invite dispute. indeed best serve high induces condition unrest, creates dissatisfaction conditions they are, stirs anger. Speech provocative challenging. strike prejudices preconceptions profound unsettling effects presses acceptance 38 Under test aside. 39 MARSHALL, 40 my view, requires 41 correctly evaluates procedure: novo.' From reached 'trial novo' appeal. What, then, it? pertinent Rules provide: 12.02 Manner Taking 42 An taken filing clerk thereof certified copy amount costs, executed bond pay costs perform rendered him whereupon, issue rendering judgment, thereon, transmit office original papers prosecution. 43 '(2) provisions governing bail apply subsection (1). 44 '(3) service proceedings, execution issued whom served return hands suspended appeal.' 12.06 Schedule Trial; Judgment 45 'Appeals docketed regular prosecution anew, rendered, affirmed extent punishment, any, adjudged thereupon dismissed, stand paid party dismissed.' reaffirmed restrictions heavier appeal: 'It doubted flagrant practice imposing every explicit punishing succeeded Where, each us, error, 'penalizing exercise' 'would patently unconstitutional.' Jackson, 390 570, 581, 1209, 1216, 138. very existence punitive policy would, respect still prison, 'chill basic rights.' 582, 1216. See Griffin California, 380 609, 1229, 106; Johnson Avery, 393 483, 747, 718. nonconstitutional pursued collateral remedy law. 'A sentence, based defendant.' Nichols (8 Cir.) 106 F. 679. 'without unfettered (I) t unfair great power given determine making unfree choice.' Worcester Commissioner Internal Revenue, Cir., 370 F.2d 713, Short States, 120 47 App.D.C. 165, 167, 344 550, 552. 'This never establish avenues review, now fundamental once established, kept unreasoned distinctions impede open equal Illinois, 351 76 585, 100 891; Douglas 372 353, 83 814, 811; Lane Brown, 477, 768, 892; Draper Washington, 487, 774, 899.' Rinaldi Yeager, 384 305, 310—311, 86 1497, 1500—1501, 577.' 723—725, 2079—2080. 48 today escape conclusions as: 49 'Our system.' 50 To contrary, Jurisdictional Statement cites 'de accepted motion dismiss similar statement: 51 'The Commonwealth Attorney advised wish oppose dismiss. 52 'While correct assumption community hostile toward attempt disrupt university, hostility earned, conceivable composed below. Nonetheless, reviewed submitted research forced continue For reason dismissed hereby granted.' 53 shows $10 consequently knowingly Finally, Court's ruling $500 plus jail. 54 suggests danger Specifically, faults failing precise Pearce. rest most based, rather, whenever twice deter trial. danger, deterrent effect, takes first. Certainly good rejects favorable 55 reversal. core problem control. version facts largely Appeals. 375—376 orders uttered rapid succession comply. App. 49—51. earlier gave admonition quoted text. 23—24. indicates courts' resolution factual dispute one. 545 n. 8, 459, (1965). brief reference remained scene avert misdeeds witness them. Yet builds reasonable seemingly dispels whatever force states brief: 'In overwhelming majority suspicion (of brutality) undoubtedly wrong, there.' Brief 36. attacks overbreadth grounds subsections 'unreasonable noise' 'abusive obscene language.' §§ 437.016(b), (c) properly E.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 22—371 et seq. (1956 Supp.1971—1972); Ark.Stat.Ann. 44—501 (1964); Colo.Rule 37(f); Fla.Stat.Ann. 924.41 (Supp.1972—1973); Ind.Ann.Stat. 9—713 1956 Supp.1971), IC 1971, 35—1 11—2; Kan.Stat.Ann. 22—3610 (Supp.1971); Me.Dist.Ct.Crim.Rule seq.; Md.Ann.Code, Art. 5, (1968); Mich.Stat.Ann. 28—1226 (Supp.1972), M.C.L.A. 774.34; Minn.Stat. 488.20, 633.20 (1969); Miss.Code Ann. 1201, 1202 Mo.Sup.Ct.Rule 22, V.A.M.R.; Mont.Rev.Codes 95—2001 (1947); Neb.Rev.Stat. 601 Nev.Rev.Stat. 189.010 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 502:18, 502-A:11—12 N.M.Stat.Ann. 15—1 N.C.Gen Stat. 15—177 seq., 20—138 (1965 Supp.1971); N.D.Cent.Code 33—12—40 (1960); Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 42, 3001 Pa.Const., Sched.Art. 16(r)(iii) (Philadelphia), P.S.; Tex.Code Crim.Proc., Arts. 44.17, 45.10 (1966); Va.Code 16.1—129 (1950); Wash.Rev.Code 3.50.380 W.Va.Code 50—18—1 (1966 Supp.1971). Misdemeanors defined year fine. 25.010, 26.010 (1962 Supp.1968). What calls include quarterly, justice's limited $20, 25.010 (1962). concurrent denominates application exists redetermination questions Ky.Rules discussion operate Ann.Jur.2d, Justices Peace 49—120. Massachusetts, Carolina, Pennsylvania. Mann 271 N.E.2d 331 (Mass.1971); Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E.2d 765 (1970); Sched. (Philadelphia). Virginia. Sparrow, 499, 897 Evans City Richmond, 210 Va. 403, 171 247 See, e.g., People Olary, 382 Mich. 559, 170 N.W.2d 842 DeBonis, 58 N.J. 182, 276, A.2d 137 Court, professional. applies: Bronstein Superior Ariz. 251, 475 P.2d 235 Shak, Haw. 626, 466 420 Eldridge 256 Ind. 113, 267 (1971); Cherry Md.App. 416, 264 887 Harper, 219 Pa.Super. 100, 280 637 Contra: Stanosheck, 186 Neb. 180 226 New Mexico altogether. 36—15—3 (Supp.1971). Rice 434 297 (CA4 1970), vacated remanded mootness, 244, 402, 413 contra: Lemieux Robbins, 414 353 (CA1 1969), cert. denied, 397 1017, 1247, 432 (1970). Manns Allman, 324 F.Supp. 1149 (WD Va.1971), rather judge. know counsel closing argument been, 93, blocked parked up going leaving

Category: 2