City of Rock Hill v. Henry
| Decision Date | 15 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18001,18001 |
| Citation | 244 S.C. 74,135 S.E.2d 718 |
| Parties | CITY OF ROCK HILL, Respondent, v. Leroy HENRY et al., Appellants. (Nine cases.) |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Jenkins & Perry, Columbia, Donald James Sampson and Willie T. Smith, Jr., Greenville, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Everett N. Brandon, Columbia, Solicitor George F. Coleman, Winnsboro, and Spencer & Spencer, Rock Hill, for respondent.
The convictions of the defendants of the common law crime of breach of peace in this case have been vacated by an order of the United States Supreme Court and the cause remanded to us for reconsideration in the light of its decision in the case of James Edwards, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. State of South Carolina. 372 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697. Recognizing the power and authority of the United States Supreme Court to reverse a State conviction for proper reasons or grounds based on the provisions of the Federal Constitution, we have endeavored to carry out the mandate of the United States Supreme Court and find that the light, if any, shed upon instant case by the Edwards case is not readily or easily discernible.
Following the decision in the Edwards case, the United States Supreme Court, in a mandate similar to the one in instant case vacated the judgments in State v. James Fields, et al., 372 U.S. 522, 83 S.Ct. 887, 9 L.Ed.2d 965, and ordered us to reconsider our judgments in those cases, in the light of Edwards. We then assiduously tried to analyze, in the hope of understanding, the reasoning of the majority opinion in the Edwards case delivered by Mr. Justice Stewart wherein he stated: 'The state courts have held that the petitioners' conduct constituted breach of the peace under state law, and we may accept their decision as binding upon us to that extent.' We would like to point out that the referred to is merely the common law of England adopted in South Carolina as one of the original states.
Considering the foregoing statement alone, in connection with the result reached, one might arrive at the conclusion that the holding of the court was to the effect that a person has a right to commit the common law crime of breach of peace so long as one is engaged in the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The same rights are fully protected by Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution of South Carolina.
We, however, did not arrive at so narrow a construction of the opinion of the court. After careful study and close scrutiny of the opinion, we arrived at the view that the holding of the court was simply as follows:
That wherever rights protected by the First Amendment are involved, it becomes the duty of the United States Supreme Court to review the entire record and all of the circumstances to determine for itself in each individual case, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the United States Supreme Court to set aside a conviction for breach of peace, such conviction being otherwise fully supported by the evidence and binding upon the United States Supreme Court.
To state our construction of the holding of the court in another way is as follows: that wherever there is involved a conflict between the power and duty of the state to maintain law, public order and peace, to prevent violence and to punish for breach of peace, on the one hand; and the assertion of constitutional rights by an individual, on the other hand, it becomes the duty of the United States Supreme Court to consider all the facts and circumstances involved in each case and, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, determine which right shall prevail.
Whether our construction of the opinion was correct or not, it seems clear that the United States Supreme Court, after conceding that the decision of this court to the effect that the conduct of the defendants constituted the common law crime of breach of peace was binding upon it, then proceeded to review the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Henry 64 v. City of Rock Hill
-
Moshtaghi v. The Citadel
...Const., Art. I, Sect. 2. Those are the same protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. See City of Rock Hill v. Henry, 244 S.C. 74, 76, 135 S.E.2d 718, 719 (1963), reversed on other grounds, 376 U.S. 776, 84 S.Ct. 1042, 12 L.Ed.2d 79 As discussed above, we affirmed the trial ......
- Knight v. Johnson