Court Opinion

ID: 9422063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:01:04.563178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:34.068535
License: Public Domain

*197Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
with whom Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan join,
dissenting.
I do not agree that the decision below rests on adequate nonfederal grounds. And — whether it does or not — it seems to me that the case should not be dismissed in view of developments since the argument.
The crucial holding below is that the North Carolina courts could not consider the Simkins 1 record because appellants “for reasons best known to themselves elected not to offer [it] in evidence.” 248 N. C. 485, 493,103 S. E. 2d 846, 852. It goes without saying that the procedural rule thus invoked — that appellants must rely on evidence which was offered at the trial — is, in itself, reasonable. In fact, that rule is elementary in most types of practice. The difficulty here lies not in the rule, but in its application to this case, on this record, and in the light of the fact, acknowledged by the State,2 that appellants offered the Simkins record in evidence.
The relevant facts are few. When the federal court granted its injunction in Simkins, it found that appellants had been excluded from Gillespie Park on the occasion in question because they are Negroes. Simkins v. City of Greensboro, 149 F. Supp. 562, 565. As was held below, such exclusion, if established as a fact in this case, would be a complete defense to the State's trespass charge. 248 N. C., at 491-493, 103 S. E. 2d, at 851-852. Therefore, appellants offered the Simkins record in evidence during their trial.3 They claimed, under the Supremacy Clause *198and the Fourteenth Amendment, that the federal court determination barred the state prosecution. However, the State objected to appellants’ offer of proof, and the trial court sustained the objection.4 Thereafter, the jury-convicted.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, appellants sought review of their contention that the federal court findings were binding on the State in the subsequent criminal proceedings. At this point they made the mistake which deprived them of the opportunity to have that federal question reviewed. They failed to include their offer of proof and the rejected exhibits in their case on appeal, although they did include the ruling on the State’s objection. With the resulting defective record before it, the State Supreme Court held that it could not review appellants’ federal question because, as has been indicated, appellants “for reasons best known to themselves elected not to offer [the Simkins record] in evidence.”
The Court holds that the state ground is adequate to support the decision below because, although we know the fact to be to the contrary, the assertion that appellants failed to offer the Simkins record in evidence “is borne out by the record” which the state court had before it, I cannot read that record — appellants’ case on appeal — as does the Court. Therefore, I do not agree that the state ground is adequate. But even if it were, it does not follow that the case must' — or should — be dismissed. Rather, the State’s stipulation — a supervening event which may be of critical significance under North Carolina law — requires a different disposition, in the interests of justice, under controlling precedent.
First. It cannot be said, even on the defective record which the State Supreme Court had before it, that appel*199lants “for reasons best known to themselves elected not to offer [the Simkins record] in evidence.” On the contrary, appellants’ case on appeal indicates clearly that appellants offered the Simkins record in evidence. When the portions of that record set out in the Court’s opinion5 are read as a whole with the entire case on appeal, it seems reasonably clear that the Simkins record was offered in evidence, that the State objected to the offer, and that the objection was sustained. Therefore, whether the result below could have been based on other grounds or not, the factual premise for the ground on which it was based lacks fair and substantial support in the record. That ground, therefore, is not adequate. Cf. Creswill v. Grand Lodge, 225 U. S. 246; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 248 U. S. 67; Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 223 U. S. 655; see United Gas Co. v. Texas, 303 U. S. 123, 143. “Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. Since the only state ground mentioned in the opinion below is inadequate, this Court should either proceed directly to a consideration of the federal question or — if deemed desirable — should remand the case to the state court for further consideration.
Second. Even if the state ground were adequate, the case should not be dismissed. After the argument in this Court, the State furnished the Court with a copy of the actual stenographic transcript of the trial. The State stipulated to the accuracy of that transcript. The transcript shows, beyond peradventure, that the decision below was based “upon a supposed state of facts which does not exist.” Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 215 *200N. C. 195, 200, 1 S. E. 2d 569, 572. The North Carolina court apparently recognizes infirmity in its decisions in such cases. State v. Marsh, 134 N. C. 184, 47 S. E. 6. Therefore, the State’s stipulation, an event “which has supervened since the judgment [below] was entered,” may very well “affect the result.” Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 600, 607. Accordingly, under firmly established principles, either the case should be remanded for a decision by the state court on the legal effect of the State’s stipulation,6 or we should decide this question of state law ourselves.7 To'take such action “is not to review, in any proper sense of the term, the decision of the state court upon a non-federal question, but only to deal appropriately with a matter arising since its judgment and having a bearing upon the right disposition of the case.” Patterson v. Alabama, supra, at 607; State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511, 515-516.
Third. It should not be assumed that other state grounds, not relied on below, would preclude reconsideration by the state court if the case were remanded. As has been indicated, the State’s stipulation may create infirmity in the state court’s decision, under North Carolina law. See State v. Marsh, supra. A remaining obstacle to appellate review of appellants’ federal question, under North Carolina practice, may be the omission of the rejected exhibits from appellants’ case on appeal. See In re Smith’s Will, 163 N. C. 464, 79 S. E. 977. But records can be corrected. The Court refers us to cases which show that the North Carolina court may permit *201corrections in the record proper8 and in the case on appeal.9 It may authorize corrections not only when, fault is attributable to the lower court,10 but also when it is chargeable to the parties.11 It may do so pursuant to agreement between the parties12 and pursuant to motion of one of the parties.13 Indeed, it appears that it may be able to do so on its own motion.14 Its power to inquire into the accuracy of the record before it is established— *202to some extent at least — by recent decisions,15 and its power to order the lower courts to send up “additional papers and parts of the record” is explicitly recognized by its rules.16 Therefore, the state court could permit a correction of the record — and consequently could decide the federal question — if the case were remanded.
It is true that there is language in North Carolina cases, to which the State has called our attention, that indicates that a record settled by agreement — rather than by the trial court — may only be corrected by agreement. See Smith v. Capital Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 221 N. C. 202, 19 S. E. 2d 626; Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra. And language from State v. Dee; 214 N. C. 509, 512, 199 S. E. 730, 732, quoted by the Court in another connection, suggests that the state court is disinclined to permit the correction of a defective record when the case on appeal is settled by the parties. But these cases are not in point in the circumstances of the case before us.
The rule stated in Smith and Gorham — that a record settled by agreement can only be corrected by agreement — is subject to a very relevant qualification. For in Gorham, the North Carolina court observed, in denying a losing party's request for a certiorari to correct the record, that:
“[T]here is no concession on the part of the [prevailing party] that the case has been decided 'upon a sham issue/ or 'upon a supposed state of facts which does not exist/ nor yet upon a misconception of the record. Cook v. Mfg. Co., [183 N. C. 48, 110 *203S. E. 608]; S. v. Marsh, [supra]. These are allegations of the [losing party], and [the prevailing party] says they rest only in allegation. She further says that the interpretation placed upon the record Vas and is absolutely correct’; . . . and that the transcript admits of no other interpretation.” 215 N. C., at 200, 1 S. E. 2d, at 572.
Here, on the other hand, the State has stipulated to facts which do establish that the case was decided below “upon a supposed state of facts which does not exist.” That is precisely what the prevailing party in Gorham did not concede. This case, therefore, is governed by Cook and Marsh, not by Gorham.
Likewise, in Dee, the North Carolina court denied the State’s request for a certiorari to correct an alleged error in the case on appeal. But in Dee, as in Gorham, the prevailing party did not concede that there was any error in the record. In fact, the court itself expressed skepticism about the State’s claim:
“It is suggested by the Attorney-General that, in all probability, a typographical error has crept into the transcript and that the word ‘disinterested’ was used where the word ‘interested’ appears. In this he is supported by a letter from.the judge who presided at the trial, and upon this letter a motion for cer-tiorari to correct the record has been lodged on behalf of the State. The solicitor apparently took a different view of the matter when he agreed to the statement of case on appeal with an exception pointed directly to the expression.” 214 N. C., at 512, 199 S. E., at 732.
On these facts, quite different from those before us, it is perhaps understandable that the state court refused to entertain the State’s appeal to its discretion.
Therefore, it appears that if the case were remanded, appellants would very likely be permitted to correct their *204case on appeal, in view of the State's stipulation. And, as has been indicated, a correction could now be allowed even if the State objected to it. But I am sure that the State would not object, for North Carolina has no interest in depriving its citizens of their liberty on assumptions that do not accord with fact. It seems clear, therefore, that under North Carolina law, appellants may yet have their federal question reviewed — unless we dismiss.17
*205In view of the federal court finding that the appellants were excluded from Gillespie Park because of their race, these convictions give rise to serious constitutional doubts. Unless dismissal cannot be avoided, the appellants should not be deprived of their liberty without being heard on their federal question. Our own precedents require that we either remand the case or decide the questions which it presents.

 Simkins v. City of Greensboro, 149 F. Supp. 562, affirmed, City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 246 F. 2d 425.

 The State has stipulated to the accuracy of a stenographic trial transcript made available to the Court, after argument, at the Court’s request. See the Court’s opinion, note 9. Of course, the State denies that the transcript has any relevance to the issues before the Court.

 See the Court’s opinion, notes 8, 9.

 See the Court’s opinion, note 8.

 See the Court’s opinion, note 8.

 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503; Pagel v. MacLean, 283 U. S. 266; Patterson v. Alabama, supra; State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511; New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U. S. 688; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 155-156; Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375.

 Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 273 U. S. 126; Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450.

 State v. Mosley, 212 N. C. 766, 194 S. E. 486; State v. Brown, 203 N. C. 513, 166 S. E. 396; State v. Marsh, supra; State v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 28 S. E. 255; State v. Farrar, 103 N. C. 411, 9 S. E. 449, 104 N. C. 702, 10 S. E. 159; State v. Butts, 91 N. C. 524; cf. Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N. C. 233, 100 S. E. 2d 379; Mason v. Moore County Board, 229 N. C. 626, 51 S. E. 2d 6.

 Cameron v. Power Co., 137 N. C. 99, 49 S. E. 76; Arnold v. Dennis, 131 N. C. 114, 42 S. E. 552; Sherrill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 654, 21 S. E. 400; Broadwell v. Ray, 111 N. C. 457, 16 S. E. 408; Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C. 718, 12 S. E. 383; cf. Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N. C. 233, 100 S. E. 2d 379; Mason v. Moore County Board, 229 N. C. 626, 51 S. E. 2d 6.

 Cameron v. Power Co., 137 N. C. 99, 49 S. E. 76; Sherrill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 654, 21 S. E. 400; Broadwell v. Ray, 111 N. C. 457, 16 S. E. 408; State v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 28 S. E. 255.

 Arnold v. Dennis, 131 N. C. 114, 42 S. E. 552; State v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 28 S. E. 255.

 Smith v. Capital Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 221 N. C. 202, 19 S. E. 2d 626; Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra; Miller v. Scott, 185 N. C. 93, 116 S. E. 86.

 State v. Mosley, 212 N. C. 766, 194 S. E. 486; State v. Brown, 203 N. C. 513, 166 S. E. 396; Cameron v. Power Co., 137 N. C. 99, 49 S. E. 76; State v. Marsh, supra; Sherrill v. Western Union Tel. Co., 116 N. C. 654, 21 S. E. 400; Broadwell v. Ray, 111 N. C. 457, 16 S. E. 408.

 See Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N. C. 233, 100 S. E. 2d 379; Mason v. Moore County Board, 229 N. C. 626, 51 S. E. 2d 6; State v. Butts, 91 N. C. 524; State v. Daniel, 121 N. C. 574, 28 S. E. 255; State v. Farrar, 103 N. C. 411, 9 S. E. 449, 104 N. C. 702, 10 S. E. 159.

 Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N. C. 233, 100 S. E. 2d 379; Mason v. Moore County Board, 229 N. C. 626, 51 S. E. 2d 6.

 N. C. S. C. Rule 19 (1). Rule 19 (1) sets out the requirements as to form and content of transcripts on appeal. After setting out these requirements, it recites: “Provided, further, that this rule is subject to the power of this Court to order additional papers and parts of the record to be sent up.”

 Under my view of the case, it is unnecessary to decide whether the North Carolina court’s broad powers with respect to the record, and the evidence of their frequent exercise in the interests of justice, see notes 8-16, supra, are consistent with the Court’s rejection of appellants’ argument, based on Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 376, that the North Carolina court should have gone outside the record to get at the truth as it has in some other cases. E. g., Aycock v. Richardson, 247 N. C. 233, 100 S. E. 2d 379.
However, it may be worth noting in this connection that there is no relevant distinction between criminal cases like this one and civil cases like Aycock. Cf. the Court’s opinion, note 10. The same statute, said to limit the power of the state court to go outside the record, see State v. Dee, supra, at 512, 199 S. E., at 732 (quoted by the Court), is equally applicable to either type of case. Likewise, the apparently inflexible rule stated in the criminal cases cited by the Court is also stated in numerous civil cases. See, as representative, Hagan v. Jenkins, 234 N. C. 425, 67 S. E. 2d 380; Bame v. Palmer Stone Works, 232 N. C. 267, 59 S. E. 2d 812. The same precedents are applicable in both types of case. See, for example, Bame v. Palmer Stone Works, supra, and conversely, the Dee and Weaver cases cited by the Court. Therefore, if the rule stated in the criminal decisions relied on by the Court is as inflexible as it purports to be, it should be equally so in civil cases. Yet Aycock shows that the rule is less rigid in fact than in articulation.
The Court also distinguishes Aycock because there the state court went outside the record to verify an apparent lack of jurisdiction. See the Court’s opinion, note 11. However, so far as has been called to our attention, the North Carolina court has never suggested such a distinction. It would seem more logical, therefore, to assume that if the state court can go outside the record where it apparently lacks jurisdiction, it can do so where its jurisdiction is clear.