Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/306/451.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:14:09+00:00

Document:
Messrs. Samuel Kagle and Harry A. Mackey, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
By this appeal we are called on to decide whether, by reason of vagueness and uncertainty, a recent enactment of New Jersey, 4, R.S.N.J. 1937, 2:136-4, c. 155, Laws 1934, is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const. It is as follows: 'Any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime, in this or in any other State, is declared to be a gangster ...'.1 Every violation is punishable by fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 20 years, or both. 5, R.S.N.J.1937, 2:136-5.
In the court of quarter sessions of Cape May County, appellants were accused of violating the quoted clause. The indictment charges that on four days, June 12, 16, 19, and 24, 1936 'they, and each of them, not being engaged in any lawful occupation; they, and all of them, known to be members of a gang, consisting of two or more persons, and they, and each of them, having been convicted of a crime in the State of Pennsylvania, are hereby declared to be gangsters.' There was a trial, verdict of guilty, and judgment of conviction on which each was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison for not more than ten years and not less than five years, at hard labor. On the authority of its recent decision in State v. Bell, 188 A. 737, 15 N.J.Misc. 109, the Supreme Court entered judgment affirming the conviction. State v. Pius, 118 N.J.L. 212, 192 A. 89. The Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed, 120 N.J.L. 189, 198 A. 837, on the authority of its deci- [306 U.S. 451, 453] sion, State v. Gaynor, 119 N.J.L. 582, 197 A. 360, affirming State v. Bell.
Appellants were convicted before the opinion in State v. Gaynor. It would be hard to hold that, in advance of judicial utterance upon the subject, they were bound to understand the challenged provision according to the language later used by the court. Indeed the state Supreme [306 U.S. 451, 457] Court (State v. Bell, supra) went on supposed analogy between 'gang' and offenses denounced by the Disorderly Persons Act, Comp.Stat.Supp.1930, 59-1 R.S.N.J.1937, 2:202-1, upheld by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Levine v. State, 110 N.J.L. 467, 470, 166 A. 300. But the court in that case found the meaning of 'common burglar' there involved to be derivable from the common law.
The descriptions and illustrations used by the court to indicate the meaning of 'gang' are not sufficient to constitute definition, inclusive or exclusive. The court's opinion was framed to apply the statute to the offenders and accusation in the case then under consideration; it does not purport to give any interpretation generally applicable. The state court did not find, and we cannot, that 'gang' has ever been limited in meaning to a group having purpose to commit any particular offense or class of crimes, or that it has not quite frequently been used in reference to groups of two or more persons not to be suspected of criminality or of anything that is unlawful. The dictionary definitions adopted by the state court extend to persons acting together for some purpose, 'usually criminal', or 'mainly for criminal purposes'. So defined, the purposes of those constituting some gangs may be commendable, as, for example, groups of workers engaged under leadership in any lawful undertaking. The statute does not declare every member to be a 'gangster' or punishable as such. Under it, no member is a gangster or offender unless convicted of being a disorderly person or of crime as specified. It cannot be said that the court intended to give 'gangster' a meaning broad enough to include anyone who had not been so convicted or to limit its meaning to the field covered by the words that it found in a dictionary, 'roughs, hireling criminals, thieves, or the like'. The latter interpretation would include some obviously not within the statute and would exclude some plainly covered by it. [306 U.S. 451, 458] The lack of certainty of the challenged provision is not limited to the word 'gang' or to its dependent 'gangster'. Without resolving the serious doubts arising from the generality of the language, we assume that the clause 'any person not engaged in any lawful occupation' is sufficient to identify a class to which must belong all capable of becoming gangsters within the terms of the provision. The enactment employs the expression, 'known to be a member'. It is ambiguous. There immediately arises the doubt whether actual or putative association is meant. If actual membership is required, that status must be established as a fact, and the word 'known' would be without significance. If reputed membership is enough, there is uncertainty whether that reputation must be general or extend only to some persons. And the statute fails to indicate what constitutes membership or how one may join a 'gang'.
The challenged provision condemns no act or omission; the terms it employs to indicate what it purports to denounce are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it must be condemned as repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[ Footnote 1 ] The section continues: 'provided, however, that nothing in this section contained shall in any wise be construed to include any participant or sympathizer in any labor dispute.' The proviso is not here involved.
[ Footnote 2 ] Champlin Ref. Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 242 , 243 S., 52 S.Ct. 559, 567, 568, 86 A.L.R. 403; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445, 458 , 47 S.Ct. 681, 685; Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 , 391-393, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 128; Small Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 267 U.S. 233, 239 , 45 S.Ct. 295, 297; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 , 89-92, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 301, 14 A.L.R. 1045; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638 , 34 S.Ct. 924, 925; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 , 221-223, 34 S.Ct. 853, 854, 855. Cf. People v. Belcastro, 356 Ill. 144, 190 N.E. 301, 92 A.L. R. 1223; People v. Licavoli, 264 Mich. 643, 250õn.W. 520.
Another English dictionary, Wyld's Universal Dictionary of the English Language, defines the word as follows: 'gang ... 1. A band, group, squad; (a) of labourers working together; (b) of slaves, prisoners & c. 2. (in bad sense) (a) A group of persons organized for evil or criminal purpose: a gang of burglars &c; (b) (colloq., in disparagement) a body, party, group, of persons: 'I am sick of the whole gang of university wire- pullers. ..."
See: Asbury, Herbert, The Gangs of New York, 1927, Alfred A. Knopf. Thrasher, Frederic M., 'Gangs' in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1931, vol. 6, p. 564, and The Gang: A Study of 1313 Gangs in Chicago, 1927, University of Chicago Press.
[ Footnote 4 ] See, e.g., Champlin Ref. Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 242 , 243 S., 52 S.Ct. 559, 567, 568, 86 A.L.R. 403; Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127; Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373 , 33 S.Ct. 780.
[ Footnote 5 ] Cf. Kans.Laws 1935, c. 161. Ill.Laws 1933, p. 489, Ill.Rev.Stat. 1937, c. 38, 578, held unconstitutional in People v. Belcastro, 356 Ill. 144, 190 N.E. 301, 92 A.L.R. 1223. Mich.Comp.Laws (Mason's Supp.1935) 17115-167, held unconstitutional in People v. Licavoli, 264 Mich. 643, 250 N.W. 520.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.