Legal Document

338 U.S. 345 70 Supreme Court Reporter 172 94 L.Ed. 155 COLE et al.v.STATE OF ARKANSAS. Number 62. Argued Nov. 9, 1949. Decided Dec. 5, Mr. Thomas E. Harris, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Jeff Duty, Little Rock, Ark., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In December 1945, 112 117 employees an oil company, including petitioners, went out on strike. About five o'clock one afternoon, with several other strikers, assembled near plant's entrance. Although a picket line was nearby, these men were not part it, and there is no suggestion that their acts attributable either to regular pickets or union representing them. As working left plant day, petitioner Jones called named Williams 'wait minute, he wanted talk him.' When replied 'he didn't have time, his way home would see him another day,' gave signal said, 'Come on, boys.' Petitioner Cole, who carrying stick, told departing 'to go ahead they wasn't after me.' Another striker Campbell then attacked killed in ensuing struggle. It further testified petitioners others had morning discussed talking 'and agreed if right, going whip them.' While some this contradicted, such version which jury could found from evidence. 2 The present case has curiously involved history. Convicted 1946 statutory offense participation foregoing, secured reversal Arkansas errors trial. 210 Ark. 433, 196 South Western Reporter, 2nd Series 582. Following retrial, petitioners' second conviction affirmed, 211 836, 202 770; we granted certiorari reversed ground affirmance below been based upon section statute than violation tried convicted. Cole versus Arkansas, 333 196, 68 514, 92 644.1 On remand, State reconsidered appeal again affirmed sustaining convictions under prosecution based. 214 387, 216 402. Doubts as whether mandate our earlier decision obeyed led us grant certiorari. 337 929, 69 1496. 3 appears surface, at least, attempted comply now placed its same trial court submitted jury. objection is, however, much more subtle far-reaching previous decision. There it clear Court's entirely different charged claimed that, although both dealt Act involved, appellate adopted contrasting interpretations section, result repetition error. 4 addition contention, error repeated, also violates Federal Constitution abridges freedom speech assembly, charge are too vague indefinite conform due process. All three claims involve serious charges error, any can be supported, entitled prevail. 5 Section 193, Acts 1943, provides: 'It shall unlawful person acting concert persons, assemble place where 'labor dispute' exists by force violence prevent attempt engaging lawful vocation, himself, member group organization promote, encourage aid assemblage. * *' (Italics supplied.) 6 review, indicated italicized portion, requires accused assemblage intention used working. Petitioners' quarrel, construction. Instead, contend court, construed jury, rested theory required mere presence unplanned unconcerted precipitated another. requirements knowledge intent, claim 'read into' first time absent court. 7 thus becomes apparent underlying each contentions advanced behalf basic premise nothing needed convict them occurred without participation, concert, knowledge. This foundation, only said violated, but application offends fundamental rights assembly protected state deprivation Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly alleged difference between rendering basis argument constitutionally invalid vagueness, being contended here very demonstrated susceptible least two courts. 8 Did authorize unintended occurred? plea turn record ascertain justified. 9 information set forth labor dispute existed prevented vocation. 'The Roy (and) Louis did unlawfully feloniously, other, assemblage, against peace dignity Arkansas.'2 10 noted supra, page 198, 515, 644, language employed substantially identical § Act. 11 explaining Act, read included offenses, '* First, action persons resulting prevention And second, promoting, encouraging aiding among defendants here. latter case.' 12 instruction, you believe beyond reasonable doubt wilfully, (while) promoted, encouraged aided will indictment.' 13 Needless say, presented request construe unfavorable themselves construed. To contrary, opposite construction embodied defendants' charge, all which, minor variations, save duplicated made ninth instruction requested said: instructs fact, find fact defendants, them, altercation Williams, alone justify finding guilty.' 14 But portions apparently requirement 'promoted, assemblage—which because purpose accomplished results' (216 402, 407), sustained conclusion evidence 'the participated, aided, abetted agreement effect workers whipped agree quit work.' Petitioners argue supplied additional element so doing departed even question before almost object originating 'You instructed,' giving 'that convicted case, must convinced encouraged, Southern Cotton Oil Company, preventing Otha vocation.' 15 We do disparity instructions suggested. At most, spelled what implicit authorized 16 What already disposes contention applied assembly. For argument, too, rests assumption penalizes gathering occurs. pointed out, text does read, expressly negatived own request, complained direction. 17 Accordingly, decide power incriminate innocent when individual encouragement commits act violence. enough review asked occupies status. Evidently minds not.3 For, seen, forbade belief 'for 18 defined Court, prohibited, occupation.' 19 Certainly penalize promotion, encouragement, furtherance peaceful exists, nor infringe right expression views dispute. 20 Quite wreak Such denominated legislature, abridgment free criminal sanctions fasten actively consciously assisted therein. 21 merit unconstitutionally vague, violated process law. Here courts differed construing statute, conclude test definiteness statutes meet clause, International Harvester company Kentucky, 234 216, 223, 34 853, 855, 58 1284, met. Since cannot assume odds interpretation unnecessary explore discrepancy, existed, constitute concluding constitutional standards achieved. think 2, fairly apprises ordinary intelligence vocation constitutes thereof unlawful. 22 Judgment affirmed. 23 DOUGLAS took consideration case. provides pertinent part: 'Section 1. use violence, threat within State. 2. above although, observed, drawn referred unmistakable terms violation, 1, Accordingly reversed, holding appraise affirm considerations those governing issues determined entire follows: 'Comes Sam Robinson, Prosecuting Attorney Pulaski County, name, authority, gives accusing Jessie Bean crime felony, committed follows to-wit: 26th day December, A.D. Walter Ted Campbell, Company's Jones, Bean, County aforesaid, Arkansas.' One witness, whom believe, 'Q. You say down tent morning? Atlantic Yes, sir. here, others, discussion about working? them? Yes sir.' Facts demonstrating consummation plan given testimony witness. strike leaving plant, according wait him, day. anything else? He happened boys'? They flew up like blackbirds came fighting.'

Classification Label: 2