Bolton v. City of Greenville, 43433

• Decision Date: 04 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 43433,43433
• Citation: 178 So.2d 667,253 Miss. 656
• Parties: Carroll BOLTON v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 667

178 So.2d 667

253 Miss. 656

Carroll BOLTON v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.

No. 43433.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 4, 1965.

R. Jess Brown, Jackson, Jack Greenberg, Melvyn Zarr, New York City, for appellant.

Bogen, Wilkes & McGough, Robertshaw & Merideth, Greenville, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

This cause is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Washington County affirming a judgment and sentence of the Washington County Court imposed on September 19, 1963, which required the appellant to pay a fine of $100 and costs, and to serve ninety days in the city jail. By agreement of counsel the above styled cause and Cause No. 43,435, Bynum v. City of Greenville, Miss., 178 So.2d 672 were consolidated for argument in the circuit court. It is conceded by counsel representing the City of Greenville and the appellants that the causes arose out of substantially the same set of facts. When the cases were argued in this Court, the arguments were again consolidated by agreement of counsel and the Supreme Court was authorized to take the agreed facts as presented in the consolidated argument and apply them in both cases.

As briefly as possible, the facts out of which this case arose are as follows: At high noon on June 29, 1963, the appellant, a Negro girl eighteen years of age, went to Strange Park, which is a public park in the city of Greenville. She was accompanied by Amye Lee Bynum, another eighteen year old Negro girl, and four Negro boys aged seventeen or less. They carried with them only a glove and a baseball. Shortly after they began throwing and catching the ball in the park, numerous calls began to be made to the police station. These calls were received by Desk Sergeant W. G. Horton, who was advised that a large crowd of people were congregating at Strange Park. Sergeant Horton detailed Officer Billy H. Hicks to go to Strange Park to investigate why the crowd was congregating there. He then telephoned W. C. Burnley, Chief of Police of Greenville, and advised him of the telephone calls. It appears that Chief Burnley contacted Captain Harvey Tackett and the two went to Strange Park. When Officer Billy H. Hicks arrived at the park he found about a hundred people had gathered there and that they had parked their cars along the side of the three roads which parallel three sides of the park. Some had parked their cars in the road, remaining therein, while others had gotton out and were standing and watching the six Negro teenagers throwing the baseball back and forth.

Upon arriving, Patrolman Hicks and another partrolman, named Fryer, began to do what they could to disperse the crowd of white people, telling them to move on. Apparently all white persons to whom the order was given obeyed it. Captain Tackett arrived, and also Chief of Police W. C. Burnley. Shortly thereafter a small group of possibly eight or ten teenage white boys came from across the street into the park, doing toward the group of Negroes who were throwing the ball. Captain Tackett and the other policeman met them before they got to the group of Negroes and ordered them to move on. When so ordered, the eight or ten white boys moved on. Captain Tackett stated it was from this group of white boys that the remarks were being made to the officers to the effect that the policemen should move the Negroes out of the part or that they would do so, saying, 'let us handle it, we'll move them off,' or similar statements.

Both Captain Tackett and Chief Burnley stated that the crowd in the part was increasing in numbers and that it had risen, while they were present, from a hundred to a hundred and fifty or two hundred persons, and that there were only four or five police officers there on duty. They testified further than they were afraid that the crowd might get out of hand; that a violent breach of the peace was imminent and that in their opinion they would not be able to control the crowd. Captain Tackett testified that he twice asked the appellant to 'move on,' and she refused to do so. The record discloses that the Chief of Police did not arrest any of the white persons for the reason that he feared that the arrest of a white person would probably precipitate violence to the Negroes. Captain Tackett testified that after he had asked her to move the second line, she stood there and didn't say anything; that he ordered the Bynum girl to move on a third time and she did not say anything at first, and then he asked her if she was going to move on, whereupon she pointed to a teenage boy who was there, saying that he would have to ask the boy, who was one of her companions.

Realizing that the white crowd surrounding the park was increasing in size, Chief Burnley instructed the captain to order the appellant again to move on, which was done, and when she failed to comply, Chief Burnley ordered the captain to arrest the appellant and the order five Negroes. They were arrested, placed in patrol cars, and carried to the city jail.

Chief Burnley and the policemen testified the appellant and others were arrested only after they refused to obey their orders; that they were there protecting the safety of the Negroes and everyone else and arrested the Negroes only after the peril to their safety became imminent because of the danger of not being able to control the crowd. Chief Burnley stated that appellant was arrested for a breach of the peace because she had refused to move on when ordered to do so, but remained there, and 'it was beginning to cause an incident' which would have led to a breach of the peace and violence.

Patrolman Hicks testified emphatically that the appellant did not violate any law in his presence for which she should have been arrested prior to the time the order to 'move on' was given.

Captain Tackett testified that he did not observe the appellant doing anything herself other than 'playing' ball. He testified that the appellant did not make any threats or commit any acts which would indicate that she or her group was likely to commit any violence upon the other people.

Chief Burnley testified that he 'arrested the appellant because her presence there on that occasion had caused this crowd to gather and it was an imminent breach of the peace.' Chief Burnley further stated that the appellant and her group were not doing anything there other than playing ball and that the appellant and the other Negroes had a right to be there until she caused some breach of the peace or committed some violation of the law. Chief Burnley further stated that it was fairly certain what would have happened had they not gotton the Negroes out of the park; that is, violence would have occurred and someone would have been injured.

The record discloses that Strange Park is an integrated municipal park, and each of the police officers testified that they had seen Negroes using the park and playing therein, and that this had occurred on many occasions. In response to the question, 'You have been by there a member of times; have you ever seen any Negroes in that park?' Captain Tackett replied, 'I have many times.'

The appellant assigned four errors. The determination of this case requires the consideration of only one of these errors, namely, error number two, which is: 'The court below erred in affirming a judgment of conviction based upon no evidence of guilt.' It is unnecessary for this Court to pass upon the other errors assigned. The question before this Court therefore is simply whether or not the evidence as disclosed in the record is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. After a careful and objective study of the evidence, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the proof is wholly insufficient to support and sustain the verdict of guilty and the sentence imposed upon the appellant.

The record fails to show that the appellant or her companions had uttered any loud, threatening provocative, vulgar, indecent, or profane language. In fact, the record fails to show that appellant said anything to anyone except to ask that the ball be thrown to her. The record fails to show that she was guilty of any boisterous conduct, or did anything to antagonize anyone, except to remain in the park after being told to move on. Police Chief Burnley stated she had a right to be in the park until she caused some breach of the peace, or committed some violation of the law.

The conduct of the appellant is quite similar to the conduct of the appellant in Thomas v. State, 380 U.S. 524, 85 S.Ct. 1327, 14 L.Ed.2d 265 (1965), except that the City of Jackson had a far stronger case against Thomas than is presented here. The United States Supreme Court, by a per curiam opinion, refused to permit the city of Jackson to arrest and punish Thomas for the execution of a premeditated and resolute plot to violate substantially the same statute of the State of Mississippi which action precipitated one of the most explosive and dangerous potentials for a breach of the peace yet fomented in this state. The case at bar is not distinguishable, on the facts or the law applicable, from the Thomas case, which is controlling here.

Almost the same identical question has been up for review upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court in Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 83 S.Ct. 1240, 10 L.Ed.2d 349 (1963)....