Document: 333 U.S. 95 68 S.Ct. 397 92 L.Ed. 562 MUSSER et al.v.STATE OF UTAH. No. 60. Reargued Jan. 5, 1948. Decided Feb. 9, Appeal from the Supreme Court of State Utah. Mr. Claude T Barnes, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioners. Calvin L. Rampton, respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered opinion Court. 1 The appellants sought review by this a decision Utah on ground that convicted them in violation Fourteenth Amendment to Federal Constitution. In trial court motion dismiss charge at close evidence broadly indicated reliance as well First Amendment, and such was requests instructions. A preliminary quash information stated broad terms which it is claimed admitted argument any federal grounds. Trial resulted conviction overruled all constitutional objections affirmed. 2 On Court, inquiries bench suggested question had not been specifically assigned defendants nor below, although general transgression alleged. This whether statute, are amerced, so vague indefinite fails adequately define offense or give reasonable standards determining guilt. grew out these circumstances: 3 Defendants were tried an charged § 103—11—1, Code Ann.1943, they conspired 'to commit acts injurious public morals follows: * *' It then specified amount briefly conspiring counsel, advise practice polygamous plural marriage, set forth series overt furtherance thereof. considered prosecution under Paragraph (5) 103—11—1 which, far relevant, defines conspiracy, '(5) To act health, morals, trade commerce, perversion obstruction justice due administration laws *.' 4 obvious no narrowly drawn statute. We do presume interpretation what may include. Standing itself, would seem be warrant agreement almost judge jury might find moment contrary his its notions good trade, order. some States phrase 'injurious morals' likely punish others because varying policies matters use cigarettes liquor permissibility gambling. led inquiry statute attempts cover much effectively covers nothing. Statutes defining crimes fail their purpose if provide See, example, United v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 81, 41 298, 65 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045. Legislation run afoul Due Process Clause adequate guidance those who law-abiding, nature with charged, guide courts trying accused. 5 When adequacy respects questioned, asked granted reargument here. Rehearing convinces us questions inherent appeal presented involve determination state law. recognize part we have quoted does stand itself law but whole body common judged context. argued while admittedly very general, present sustainable (1) thereof makes crime conspiracy sweep y limited context judicial construction supply more definite also said point, case concerned, has waived lost there timely sufficient assignment dismissal comply practice. believe should pass upon raised here until opportunity deal ultimate issue relevant it. 6 conducted State, courts, vindicate own laws. Our sole concern see valid objection upheld. What statutes mean, extent provision other Acts parts same Act, highest final word. right speak word one jealously maintain scrupulously observe. order controversy restored control judgment vacated cause remanded proceedings inconsistent herewith. 7 Vacated remanded. 8 BLACK concurs result. 9 RUTLEDGE, whom DOUGLAS MURPHY concur, dissenting. 10 I make different disposition case. think deeper vice infects convictions than apparent invalidity vagueness first original here, even further possibly remove reversal. crucial question, brought review, supreme construed authorize punishment exercising free speech protected Amendments 11 violated provides shall two persons conspire morals.' construes words apply conduct induces people enter into bigamous relationships and, particularly, advocacy polygamy. held properly proved parties 'an advocate, urge polygamy unlawful cohabitation persons.' (175 P.2d 724, 734) 12 Although entire record clear urged certain particular individuals polygamy.1 For purposes assume direct personalized activity amounting incitation proscribed state. However restricted claim violations Instead, condemned advocate polygamy.2 least religious meetings where, pressure applied individuals, considerable discussion duty marriages carried on.3 13 Neither information, portions preserved printed distinguish between specific incitations generalized discussions. Cf. Thomas Collins, 323 315, 89 430. Thus proceeded theory indiscriminately both types activity. made doubly fact aside several done attend meetings, opinions subjects criticize legislation.4 By setting did consider every polygamy, attendance where advocated, Such limitation scope unquestionably required But read court, Amendments. proscribe polygamy.5 line advocacy. Constitution requires narrowly. At must incitement, state's power incitement vary speech, persuasive coercive, wrong induced, violent merely offensive mores, degree probability substantive evil actually will See Bridges California, 314 252, 262, 263, 62 190, 193, 194, 86 192, 159 1346. 15 axiomatic democratic deny citizens existing changed. And yet, succeed effort legalize obviously necessary convince substantial number desirable. desirable natural tendency induce itself.6 Thus, depending circular reasoning started, either inducing law, constitutionally essential proper functioning process. 16 abstract problem could solved various ways. extreme society can best protect prohibiting only relying completely interchange ideas safeguard against demoralizing propaganda.7 Or permit lawbreaking, long falls short incitement.8 position, prevent violate activity, cannot squared Amendment. least, indicated, clear-and-present-danger rule, second alternative marks limit 17 effect adopted third position above. affirmed unlawful. certainly theory, go well. Therefore, assuming guilty restrain, aside. verdict returned, hence impossible determine intended incite immediate Since therefore rest invalid Constitution, reverse court. supra; Williams North Carolina, 317 287, 63 207, 87 279, 143 1273; Stromberg 283 359, 51 532, 75 1117, 73 1484. 'At Heber C. Smith, Jr. object remarks defendants.' 175 735. though 730. 'It true speakers discussed readingf rom Bible making ancient marriage system instituted God, 'plural God'; declared legislation violates spirit Constitution; denounced officials Mormon Church excommunication teaching practicing stating leaders church 'no divine authority' apostate; services 'testimonial meetings' members congregation arose voluntarily express views subject, acknowledge gratitude God.' 734. 'If none anything above (see note supra), expressing disagreement denomination, criticizing legislation, giving subjects, curtailed indirection through criminal conspiracy.' 'that teach, cohabitation, within statute.' 731. 'Political agitation, passions arouses engenders, stimulate men violato n Detestation easily transformed forcible resistance authority puts execution, folly disregard causal relation two. Yet assimilate legitimate such, resistance, tolerance methods political agitation normal times government. distinction scholastic subterfuge, hard-bought acquisition fight freedom, evident when exists. If stops urging interest resist seems me attempted violation.' Judge Learned Hand Masses Pub. Co. Patten, D.C., 244 F. 535, 540. 'We nothing fear reasonings some, left demonstrate errors especially stands ready produced false reasonings; safer corrections conscience judge.' Excerpt letter written Jefferson Elijah Boardman New Milford, Connecticut, July 3, 1801, Charles A. Beard, Nation, 7, 1926, vol. 123, p. 8. 'But violation, however reprehensible morally, justification denying indicate immediately acted on.' Brandeis, concurring Whitney 274 357 376, 47 641 page 648, 71 1095.

Category: 8