Cole v. State of Arkansas, No. 373

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACK
Citation92 L.Ed. 644,68 S.Ct. 514,333 U.S. 196
Docket NumberNo. 373
Decision Date08 March 1948
PartiesCOLE et al. v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

333 U.S. 196
68 S.Ct. 514
92 L.Ed. 644
COLE et al.

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS.

No. 373.
Argued Feb. 4, 5, 1948.
Decided March 8, 1948.

Page 197

Messrs. David Rein and Joseph Forer, both of Ws hington, D.C., for petitioner.

Messrs. Oscar E. Ellis, of Salem, Ark., and Shields M. Goodwin, of Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioners were convicted of a felony in an Arkansas state court and sentenced to serve one year in the state penitentiary. The State Supreme Court affirmed, one judge dissenting on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. Ark., 202 S.W.2d 770, 771 [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to 202 S.W.2d 770 is short for Cole v. State, 202 S.W.2d 770.]. A petition for certiorari here alleged deprivation of important rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We granted certiorari because the record indicated that at least one of the questions presented was substantial, 332 U.S. 834, 68 S.Ct. 217. That question, in the present state of the record, is the only one we find it appropriate to consider. The question is: 'Were the petitioners denied due process of law * * * in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the circumstance that their convictions were affirmed under a criminal statute for violation of which they had not been charged'?

The present convictions are under an information. The petitioners urge that the information charged them with a violation of § 2 of Act 193 of the 1943 Arkansas Legis-

Page 198

lature and that they were tried and convicted of violating only § 2. The State Supreme Court affirmed their convictions on the ground that the information had charged and the evidence had shown that the petitioners had violated § 1 of the Arkansas Act which describes an offense separate and distinct from the offense described in § 2.

The information charged: '* * * Walter Ted Campbell, acting in concert with other persons, assembled at the Southern Cotton Oil Company's plant in Pulaski County, Arkansas, where a labor dispute existed, and by force and violence prevented Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation. The said Roy Cole, Louis Jones and Jessie Bean,1 in the County and State aforesaid, on the 26th day of December, 1945, did unlawfully and feloniously, acting in concert with eath (sic) other, promote, encourage and aid such unlawful assemblage against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.'

The foregoing language describing the offense charged in the information is substantially identical with the following language of § 2 of the Arkansas Act. That section provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person acting in concert with one or more other persons, to assemble at or near any place where a 'labor dispute' exists and by force or violence prevent * * * any person from engaging in any lawful vocation, or for any person acting * * * in concert with one or more other persons, to promote, encourage or aid any such unlawful assemblage.'

Page 199

The record indicates that at the request of the prosecuting attorney, the trial judge read § 2 to the jury. He then instructed them that § 2 'includes two offenses, first, the concert of action between two or more persons resulting in the prevention of a person by means of force and violence from engaging in lawful vocation. And, second, in promoting, encouraging or aiding of such unlawful assemblage by concert of action among the defendants as is charged in the information here. The latter offense is the one on trial in this case.'

The trial court also instructed the jury that they could not convict petitioners unless 'convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they promoted, encouraged, and aided in an unlawful assemblage at the plant of the Southern Cotton Oil Company, for the purpose of preventing Otha Williams from engaging in a lawful vocation.' This instruction, like the preceding one, told the jury that the trial of petitioners was for violation of §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
708 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Jackson, No. 78-1768
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 8, 1980
    ...OF PROOF Due process requires that a person be tried and convicted only for specific offenses with which he is charged. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). A variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial which substantially affects the defenda......
  • Udzinski v. Kelly, No. CV 89-3587.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 11, 1990
    ...and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge ... are among the constitutional rights of every accused...." 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 517, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1938). Pursuant to New York's Criminal Procedure Law, an indictment must contain, inter alia, a "plain an......
  • State v. Eady, (SC 15858)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 6, 1999
    ...by the majority ... deprives the defendant of his due process right to notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S. Ct. 514, 92 L. Ed. 644 (1948); Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484, 490, 525 A.2d 1315 (1987); State v. Franko, 199 Conn. 481, 491-92......
  • State v. King, No. 19339.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 2016
    ...conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court has explained that “[t]o uphold a conviction on a charge ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
705 cases
  • U.S. v. Jackson, No. 78-1768
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 8, 1980
    ...OF PROOF Due process requires that a person be tried and convicted only for specific offenses with which he is charged. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). A variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at trial which substantially affects the defenda......
  • Udzinski v. Kelly, No. CV 89-3587.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 11, 1990
    ...and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge ... are among the constitutional rights of every accused...." 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 517, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1938). Pursuant to New York's Criminal Procedure Law, an indictment must contain, inter alia, a "plain an......
  • State v. Eady, (SC 15858)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 6, 1999
    ...by the majority ... deprives the defendant of his due process right to notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S. Ct. 514, 92 L. Ed. 644 (1948); Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484, 490, 525 A.2d 1315 (1987); State v. Franko, 199 Conn. 481, 491-92......
  • State v. King, No. 19339.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 2016
    ...conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.Ct. 514, 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court has explained that “[t]o uphold a conviction on a charge ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT