Court Opinion

ID: 9541107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:51.253704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:34.599612
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring in the result) — As I understand the majority opinion, it holds that this statute does not apply to an assembly for the purpose of exercising the rights of free speech and/or petition guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, sections 4 and 5 of the constitution of this state.
I interpret the majority’s opinion to mean that the prosecution cannot prove a defendant’s participation in an unlawful assembly merely by showing that he was among those present — in other words, that the “mens rea” cannot be inferred from the mere fact that a defendant was pres*813ent at such an assembly. Or stated still another way, as I understand the majority opinion, it holds that the prosecution must prove, as a part of its case, that any person charged was an active participant in a breach of the peace before a conviction can be had under this statute. As thus interpreted, I agree that the statute does not interfere with the right of peaceable assembly or deny due process of law and, therefore, I concur in the result.
Neill and McGovern, JJ., concur with Rosellini, J.