Bell v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
| Parties | Robert Mack BELL et al. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Juanita Jackson Mitchell and Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore (Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty. and James W. Murphy, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
These appeals are from $10.00 fines imposed, but suspended, after convictions in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for trespassing on the privately owned premises of Hooper's Restaurant. The appellants entered the premises in protest against the restaurant owner's policy of not serving Negroes and refused to leave when asked to do so. In fact, they occupied seats at various tables and refused to relinquish them unless and until they were served. The manager thereupon summoned the police and swore out warrants for the arrest of the 'sit- in' demonstrators. They elected not to be tried by the magistrate and were subsequently indicted and tried.
The appellants contend that the State may not use its judicial process to enforce the racially discriminatory practices of a private owner, once that owner has opened his property to the general public, and that the Maryland Criminal Trespass Statute, although constitutional on its face, has been unconstitutionally applied. Apparently the appellants would concede that the owner could have physically and forcibly ejected them, but deny that he could constitutionally invoke the orderly process of the law to accomplish that end.
We find it unnecessary to dwell on these contentions at length, because the same arguments were fully considered and rejected by this Court in two recent cases, Drews v. State, 224 Md. 186, 167 A.2d 341, and Griffin & Greene v. State, 225 Md. 422, 171 A.2d 717. We expressly held in the Griffin case, contrary to the arguments now advanced, that demonstrators are not within the exception in the Maryland Trespass Statute, Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 577, relating to 'a bona fide claim or right of ownership', and that the statutory references to 'entry upon or crossing over', cover the case of remaining upon land after notice to leave.
We have carefully considered the latest Supreme Court case on the subject, Garner v. State of Louisiana, 82 S.Ct. 248, 30 L.W. 4070, decided December 11, 1961. There, convictions of 'sit-in' demonstrators for disturbing the peace were reversed on the ground that the convictions were devoid of evidentiary support. Chief Justice Warren, for a majority of the court, found it unnecessary to consider contentions based on broader constitutional grounds. In the absence of further light upon the subject, we adhere to the views expressed in the Griffin case.
The appellants further contend, however, that the Maryland Statute, as applied, denies to them the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They argue that their action in remaining on the premises amounted, in effect, to a verbal or symbolic protest against the discriminatory practice of the proprietor. They rely heavily upon Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265. In that case a distributor of religious literature on the sidewalk of a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State of Maryland
...been duly notified by the owner or his agent not to do so.' The convictions were affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals, 227 Md. 302, 176 A.2d 771 (1962), and we granted certiorari. 374 U.S. 805, 83 S.Ct.1691, 10 L.Ed.2d We do not reach the questions that have been argued under the Equal......
-
Bell v. State, 91
...from its fixed practice of not serving negroes. The judgments of conviction were affirmed by this Court in January 1962, Bell v. State, 227 Md. 302, 176 A.2d 771, and the appellants sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted the writ, but not until June 10,......
-
Drews v. State, 113
...in that he was possessed of state authority and purported to act under that authority, and reversed the judgment. In Bell v. State, 227 Md. 302, 176 A.2d 771 (1962), where the appellants had entered the private premises of a restaurant in Baltimore City in protest against racial segregation......
-
Cromwell, In re
...same rights of protest enjoyed by adults, such conduct, we think would justify a conviction in the case of adults. See Bell v. State, 227 Md. 302, 305, 176 A.2d 771, and cases there cited. (The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case and in the earlier case of Griffin v. State, 225 Md......