State v. Brown
| Decision Date | 06 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17921,17921 |
| Citation | 126 S.E.2d 1,240 S.C. 357 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Irene BROWN et al., Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Jenkins & Perry, Columbia, W. Newton Pough, Orangeburg, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Everett N. Brandon, Columbia, Sol. Julian S. Wolfe, Orangeburg, for respondent.
On March 15, 1960, 349 Negro students were arrested in the City of Orangeburg, South Carolina, and charged with the crime of breach of the peace. All were subsequently convicted in Magistrate's Court and sentenced to pay fines of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars or serve thirty (30) days in jail. All have appealed and, since they were charged in eight separate groups and each group tried separately, there are eight cases on appeal. However, because all of the cases involve basically the same issues and facts, they were consolidated for argument. The appeal in this case involves a group of fifteen defendants who were tried and convicted before the Magistrate and a jury, all of the remaining cases being tried before the Magistrate without a jury.
At the outset of their trials the defendants moved to dismiss the warrants against them on the ground that the information upon which the warrants were issued failed to fully set forth the crime charged. The motions were refused and such is the basis for one of the exceptions on appeal.
There can be no doubt that a person charged with a criminal offense has a constitutional right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the offense with which he is charged, Article 1, Section 18 of the Constitution of South Carolina, and that the information upon which a prosecution is commenced in Magistrate's Court must so allege. State v. Randolph, 239 S.C. 79, 121 S.E.2d 349. The question here is whether the warrants meet these requirements.
The warrants charged that the defendants 'did commit breach of the peace by unlawfully and wilfully congregating and marching in the City of Orangeburg, said County, and did approach what is known as the business section of the City of Orangeburg, the groups being headed by a number of parties who refused to stop and return to the colleges upon the request of Chief of Police Hall and other officers in the City of Orangeburg, thereby disturbing the peace and tranquility of the normal traffic on the sidewalks as well as the streets in the City of Orangeburg, which caused fear and tending to incite a riot or other disorderly conduct or cause serious trouble.'
We have recently had occasion to review the elements necessary to constitute the offense of breach of the peace in the case of The State .v Edwards, et al., 239 S.C. 339, 123 S.E.2d 247. The foregoing warrants plainly and substantially charged, under our decisions, the crime of breach ofs the peace, fully informing the defendants of the nature and cause of the offense charged. The lower court properly refused to dismiss the warrants.
The defendants next assert that the State failed to prove the commission by them of the offense of breach of the peace and that their convictions were obtained in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and assembly and their right to petition for redress of grievances, protected by Article 1, Sections 4 and 5, Constitution of South Carolina, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. All of these questions may be resolved by a determination of whether or not there is any competent evidence to sustain the conviction of the defendants for a breach of the peace.
The Orangeburg area, according to the testimony, has a population of approximately twenty thousand. Claflin College and the South Carolina State College are located in Orangeburg, both attended solely by Negro students. It appears that, beginning about February 25, 1960, there began a series of demonstrations by the Negro students in the Orangeburg area in protest against racial segregation. On February 25, 1960, a group picketed in front of Kress' Store in the main business section of the City. On February 26, 1960 a larger group staged a 'sit in' in Kress' Store. On March 1, 1960 there was a parade through the City by 600 to 700 Negro students.
As a result of these demonstrations the officers testified that very high tension and feeling was created among both the White and Negro races in the community. Two or three clashes between Negroes and Whites had occurred, resulting in arrests. In their efforts to maintain order among the citizens of the community, the City officials called to their assistance State law enforcement officers, the Mayor of the City publicly advised that no further marches or parades would be tolerated within the City without a permit, and a notice was read at the assembly hour at the South Carolina State College on March 2, 1960 informing the students that, before further parades or marches downtown, the City authorities would require that a permit be obtained.
Under the foregoing circumstances and without notice to the City officials, three groups of Negro students, totaling approximately one thousand left the campuses of the aforementioned colleges about 12 o'clock in the day of March 15, 1960 and proceeded to march, two abreast, along the sidewalks toward the main business section of the City of Orangeburg, each of the three groups taking a different route. The purpose of the procession of students, as testified by some of the defendants during the trial, was to petition the City officials of Orangeburg for redress of grievances in allegedly denying to them the right of peaceful assembly and of freedom of speech. However, no audience had been sought, or apparently intended, with any official of the City, County or State government. They planned to proceed to the City Square where they would sing The Star Spangled Banner and pray, after which they would return to their respective campuses. The procession of students, under the State's testimony, blocked traffic, streets were cluttered, and the sidealks were blocked to such an extent as to require pedestrian traffic to enter business establishments to get off the street. As the students proceeded toward the main business section of the City, the officers intercepted each group. They were in each instance asked by the officers to disperse and return to their schools. Some of the students acceded to the requests of the officers and others refused, persisting in continuing the march. The refusal to disperse in obedience to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peer
...is not an element of breach of peace. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); State v. Brown, 240 S.C. 357, 126 S.E.2d 1 (1962); State v. Langston, 195 S.C. 190, 11 S.E.2d 1 (1940); Childers v. Judson Mills Store Co., 189 S.C. 224, 200 S.E. 770 (1939). Ame......
-
City of Sumter v. McAllister
...peace. State v. Randolph et al., 239 S.C. 79, 121 S.E.2d 349; State v. Edwards et al., 239 S.C. 339, 123 S.E.2d 247; and State v. Brown et al., S.C., 126 S.E.2d 1. Repetition of those principles of law is unnecessary here. The record in these cases, viewed in the light of the applicable leg......
-
City of Rock Hill v. Henry
...the convictions based upon the reasoning and the identical facts reflected in our opinion in the companion case of State v. Brown, 240 S.C. 357, 126 S.E.2d 1. In spite of the totally different state of facts in the Fields case, the United States Supreme Court has now, without any discussion......
-
State v. Fields, 17922
...and adhere to and affirm the judgment of this Court 240 S.C. 366, 126 S.E.2d 6, for the reasons stated in our opinion in State v. Brown, 240 S.C. 357, 126 S.E.2d 1. ...