Opinion ID: 1801524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutionality of SDCL 22-10-1 and SDCL 22-10-4

Text: Defendant contends that both SDCL 22-10-1 and SDCL 22-10-4 are unconstitutional because of their failure to expressly require a showing of criminal intent; that the statutes are vague and overbroad and constitute an infringement upon the rights of free assembly and speech. The constitutionality of SDCL 22-10-1 has just very recently been passed upon by this court in the case of State v. Bad Heart Bull, et al., S.D., 257 N.W.2d 715 (1977). And since the oral argument in this matter, the constitutionality of SDCL 22-10-4 also has been considered in the case of State v. Kane, S.D., 266 N.W.2d 552, (1978). There is no need to encumber this record with selective repetition from those cases. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that the constitutionality of both of these statutes was upheld in all areas complained of by the defendant. We can conceive of no valid reason why we should now recede from such recent pronouncements of this court. Briefly stated, this court held: 1. The necessary criminal intent to commit the crime of riot may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. And that where criminal intent is an essential element of the crime, but is not made so by express statutory language, it will be implied. 2. The riot statutes give fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that certain specific conduct is prohibited, and are therefore not constitutionally infirm by reason of vagueness or overbreadth. 3. That the riot statutes prohibit certain defined conduct, rather than forms of expression, and therefore they do not violate the constitutional rights of free expression and assembly, as those rights end when violence begins. Defendant further contends that even if SDCL 22-10-4 was held to be constitutional, its application as to him was unconstitutional. The defendant asserts that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights of petition, free speech and assembly, and that since Judge Bottum's removal order was not expressly directed to him, the governmental action taken to remove him was constitutionally impermissible. The defendant does not take issue with the lawfulness of Judge Bottum's order requiring all spectators to stand as he entered the courtroom to commence the trial. Indeed, it should be apparent to everyone that a trial judge has an inherent power, as well as a duty, to conduct a fair and orderly trial. [1] In pursuit of this worthy goal, the court has the authority to issue such proper orders as may be necessary from time to time. The fact that the order to stand was not expressly directed at the defendant is immaterial. It was an order consistent with the inherent power of the court to maintain orderly proceedings in the courtroom. Defendant was totally aware of Judge Bottum's insistence that the spectators stand. He had personally conferred with Judge Bottum concerning this very issue. The evidence is that he reiterated the order to stand to the fourteen to sixteen male Indians seated in the first two rows. He was heard to say, after they refused to be persuaded, I must sit down with my people. At this very time defendant knew that, if he did not leave peaceably with all of the others, he would be removed forcibly by the authorities present. The participation of the defendant in the ensuing disturbance was at his peril. The action taken by the Tactical Squad moments later was to carry out Judge Bottum's order to clear the courtroom of spectators. This order included the defendant and any other spectators that resisted attempts to restore order in the courtroom. Defendant's claim, therefore, that the action taken against him was constitutionally impermissible, is without merit. What was said in United States v. Snider, 502 F.2d 645, 664-665, (4th Cir. 1974) seems quite appropriate here: Justice is badly served by encouraging a flagrant and deliberate disregard of the lawful order of a judge in his own courtroom. Each person, whether he be litigant, lawyer or spectator, so long as he is in a courtroom, may be required to yield the expression of so much of his beliefs as not to interfere with the administration of justice. It is not possible in this land of ordered liberty for all of the thousand beliefs to be expressed on each occasion. The expression by word or deed of the private convictions of the Sniders, although they may be deeply held, should yield, during the trial, to the imperative need of the community in having an established forum in which controversies between man and man and citizen and sovereign may be decided in a calm, detached, neutral atmosphere.